## Jerusalem Talmud Eruvin Chapter 3 ###### Jerusalem Talmud Eruvin 3:1:1 [Jerusalem Talmud Eruvin 3:1:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Eruvin/r/3:1:1) **משנה:** בַּכֹּל מְעָרְבִין וּמִשְׁתַּתְּפִין חוּץ מִן הַמַּיִם וּמִן הַמֶּלַח. וְהַכֹּל נִלְקָח בְּכֶסֶף מַעֲשֵׂר חוּץ מִן הַמַּיִם וּמִן הַמֶּלַח. הַנּוֹדֵר מִן הַמָּזוֹן מוּתָּר בַּמַּיִם וָמֶּלַח. מְעָרְבִין לַנָּזִיר בַּיַיִן וּלְיִשְׂרָאֵל בַּתְּרוּמָה. סוּמַכוּס אוֹמֵר אַף בַּחוּלִין לַכֹּהֵן בְּבֵית הַפְּרַס. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר אֲפִילוּ בֵין הַקְּבָרוֹת מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא יָכוֹל לַחוֹץ וְלוֹכַל: **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **MISHNAH:** With anything one may make an *eruv* or participate except with water or salt¹ of courtyards and participation of alleys are identical.. Anything may be bought with money of [Second] Tithe². 24:16). Edibles without calories are not considered food. except water and salt. One who vows not to eat food is permitted water and salt. One may make an *eruv* for a *nazir* with wine and for an Israel with heave³ is forbidden wine and the non-Cohen heave, wine is food appropriate for people who may consume it.. Symmachos says, also with profane food for a Cohen in a *bet happeras*⁴ is at least rabbinically impure and must be burned; it is no longer food.. Rebbi Jehudah says among the graves since he could be shielded and eat. footnotes: ¹ An עֵרוּב חֲצֵרוֹתwhich allows carrying in and to a multi-family courtyard is made by depositing food from all inhabitants of the courtyard in one of the houses belonging to it. An עֵרוּב תְּחוּמִים is made by a single person who wants to move his Sabbath domain in a certain direction by depositing food for a meal near the border of his regular Sabbath domain before the start of the Sabbath with the intention that the place of this food be the center of his Sabbath rest, which gives him 2’000 cubits in every direction from his new place. שִׁיתּוּף מְבוֹאוֹת makes a dead-end alley (duly marked by beam or lath) a common Sabbath domain of its dwellers by deposition of food common to inhabitants of the alley in one of the houses belonging to it. The rules for eruv ² Second Tithe is the property of the farmer and should be eaten in purity in Jerusalem. The tithe may be redeemed for money and the money spent on food at the place of the Temple (Deut ³ Even though the nazir ⁴ A place where a source of impurity is known but its location is unknown. The Cohen may not enter by rabbinic decree but he could be carried there in a wooden box which shields against the impurity of the dead. The food may not be heave since heave in a bet happeras ###### Jerusalem Talmud Eruvin 3:1:2 [Jerusalem Talmud Eruvin 3:1:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Eruvin/r/3:1:2) **הלכה:** בַּכֹּל מְעָרְבִין וּמִשְׁתַּתְּפִין כול׳. אָמַר רִבִּי אָחָא. דְּרִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר הִיא. דְּתַנִּינָן תַּמָּן. בַּכֹּל מְעָרְבִין וּמִשְׁתַּתְּפִין חוּץ מִן הַמַּיִם וּמִן הַמֶּלַח. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל הִיא. מְעָרְבִין בַּחֲצֵירוֹת וּמִשְׁתַּתְּפִין בֵּין בַּחֲצֵירוֹת בֵּין בַּתְּחוּמִין. מַתְנִיתָא דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר. דְּתַנֵּי. כָּל דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא נֶאֱכַל חַי כְּמוֹת שֶׁהוּא מְעָרְבִין בּוֹ. עִם הַפַּת. אֵין מְעָרְבִין בּוֹ. הַשּׁוּם וְהַבְּצָלִים. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר אֵין מְעָרְבִין בָּהֶן. דְּתַנֵּי. אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָה. מַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁשָּׁבַת רִבִּי מֵאִיר בְּארדקסם וּבָא אֶחָד וְאָמַר. עֵירַבְתִּי עַל יְדֵי בְצָלִים. וְהוֹשִׁיבוֹ רִבִּי מֵאִיר בְּאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת שֶׁלּוֹ. אַף עַל גָּב דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר אָמַר. בַּכֹּל מְעָרְבִין וּמִשְׁתַּתְּפִין חוּץ מִן הַמַּיִם וּמִן הַמֶּלַח. וּבִלְבַד דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא נֶאֱכַל חַי כְּמוֹת שֶׁהוּא. הַלּוּף וְהַקּוֹלֳקַס. עַל דַּעְתִּין דְּרַבָּנִן אֵין מְעָרְבִין בָּהֶן. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **HALAKHAH:** “With anything one may make an *eruv* or participate,” etc. Rebbi Aḥa said, this is Rebbi Eliezer’s, as we have stated there³⁰ of courtyards, where R. Joshua disagrees and asserts that a single loaf of bread is a valid *eruv*. It follows that Mishnah 3:1 refers to *eruv teḥumim*, an *eruv* of domains. (Note by Rashba)., “with anything one may make an *eruv* or participate except with water or salt, the words of Rebbi Eliezer.” Rebbi Yose said, it is everybody’s opinion. One makes an *eruv* for courtyards and participates both for courtyards and for domains³¹ both for courtyards and domains and participates for alleys. A possible emendation would be to delete the first mention of “courtyards”; S. Liebermann proposes to read כן for בין “by the same rules one makes *eruv* or participates for courtyards and domains.”. Our Mishnah is Rebbi Meïr’s, as it was stated: one may make an *eruv* with anything eaten raw as is; with bread, one does not make an *eruv* with it³² which represents two meals at a place where there are no cooking facilities, he requires food that can be eaten as is without any additions. He excludes vegetables eaten only with bread.. Garlic and onions, in the opinion of Rebbi Meïr one does not make an *eruv* with them³³, as it was stated: Rebbi Jehudah said, it happened that Rebbi Meïr spent a Sabbath at Ardaksam³⁴; there came a person who said, I made an *eruv* with onions and Rebbi Meïr restricted him to his four cubits³⁵, he voluntarily left his Sabbath domain and is restricted to his 4 cubits as explained in Chapter 4.. Even though Rebbi Meïr said, with everything one may make an *eruv* or participate except with water or salt, on condition that it be something eaten raw as is. Arum and colocasia: in the rabbis’ opinion one does not make an *eruv* with³⁶. footnotes: ³⁰ Mishnah 7:10, detailing the rules for eruvin ³¹ This sentence makes no sense as it stands since one makes an eruv ³² Obviously a reference “the words of R. Meïr” is missing here. For an eruv teḥumim ³³ Since they are eaten raw only with bread, or because they cause bad mouth odor, see below. ³⁴ In the Babli 29a the place is ערדיסקא. It must have been in lower Galilee not far from Tivˋon. ³⁵ Tosephta 6:4. If he came from another place to hear R. Meïr on basis of an invalid eruv ³⁶ Since they are not edible when raw. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Eruvin 3:1:3 [Jerusalem Talmud Eruvin 3:1:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Eruvin/r/3:1:3) תַּנִּינָן תְּרֵין כְּלָלִין וְלָא דָמְיָין חַד לְחַד. בַּכֹּל מְעָרְבִין וּמִשְׁתַּתְּפִין חוּץ מִן הַמַּיִם וּמִן הַמֶּלַח. בֵּין בְּדָבָר שֶׁהוּא נֶאֱכַל חַי כְּמוֹת שֶׁהוּא. בֵּין בְּדָבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ נֶאֱכַל חַי כְּמוֹת שֶׁהוּא. וְהַכֹּל נַלְקָח בְּכֶסֶף מַעֲשֵׂר חוּץ מִן הַמַּיִם וּמִן הַמֶּלַח. וּבִלְבַד דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא נֶאֱכַל חַי כְּמוֹת שֶׁהוּא. בַּכֹּל מְעָרְבִין וּמִשְׁתַּתְּפִין חוּץ מִן הַמַּיִם וּמִן הַמֶּלַח. בֵּין כְּרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה בֵּין כְּרִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. וְהַכֹּל נִלִקָח בְּכֶסֶף מַעֲשֵׂר חוּץ מִן הַמַּיִם וּמִן הַמֶּלַח. כְּרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה. בְּרַם כְּרִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** We have stated two principles which are not comparable one with the other. “With anything one may make an *eruv* or participate except with water or salt,” whether it is something eaten raw as is or something which is not eaten raw. “Anything may be bought with money of [Second] Tithe except water and salt,” but only something eaten raw as is³⁷ (*teḥumim*) only produce eaten raw is acceptable, for Second Tithe all produce.. “With anything one may make an *eruv* or participate except with water or salt,” both according to Rebbi Aqiba and Rebbi Ismael. “Anything may be bought with money of [Second] Tithe except water and salt,” according to Rebbi Aqiba. But according to Rebbi Ismael? footnotes: ³⁷ This text makes sense only if one switches the statements: For an eruv ###### Jerusalem Talmud Eruvin 3:1:4 [Jerusalem Talmud Eruvin 3:1:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Eruvin/r/3:1:4) תַּנֵּי רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. וְנָתַתָּה הַכֶּסֶף בְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר תְּאַוֶּה נַפְשְׁךָ הֲרֵי זֶה כְלָל. בַּבָּקָר וּבַצֹּאן וּבַיַּיִן וּבַשֵּׁכָר הֲרֵי זֶה פְרָט. וּבְכֹל אֲשֶׁר תִּשְׁאָלְךָ נַפְשֶׁךָ הֲרֵי זֶה כְלָל אַחֵר. כְּלָל וּפְרָט וּכְלָל וְאֵין אַתָּה דָן אֶלָּא כְעֵין הַפְּרָט. לוֹמַר. מַה הַפְּרָט מְפוֹרַשׁ דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא וְולַד וְולָדוֹת הָאָרֶץ. אַף אֵין לִי אֶלָּא דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא וְולַד וְולָדוֹת הָאָרֶץ. רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה מְפָרֵשׁ. מַה הַפְּרָט מְפָרֵשׁ שֶׁהוּא פֶּרִי כִּוְולַד פֶּרִי וּמַכְשִׁירֵי פֶרִי. אַף אֵין לִי אֶלָּא דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא פֶּרִי וְולַד פֶּרִי וּמַכְשִׁירֵי פֶרִי. מַה נְפַק מִבֵּינֵיהוֹן. דָּגִים וַחֲגָבִים כְּמֵהִין וּפִטְרִיּוֹת. כְּרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה נִלְקָחִין בְּכֶסֶף מַעֲשֵׂר. כְּרִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אֵינָן נִלְקָחִין. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** ³⁸ 1:4 (Notes 144–151, ד). Parallels in *Sifra* Introduction (8), Babli *Eruvin* 27b, *Bava Qamma*54b,36a; in slightly different version *Nazir*35b. Rebbi Ismael stated: ³⁹. 14:26.*Spend the money on anything you want*, this is a general clause. *For cattle and sheep, wine and intoxicating drink*, this is detail. *And anything you want*, another general clause. General, detail, and general, you may judge only in light of the detail⁴⁰, Introduction.. Just as the detail is explained as born from what is born from the earth, so only what is born from what is born from the earth⁴¹. Rebbi Aqiba explains⁴². 107 naturally without reference to R. Ismael’s rule.: Just as the detail is explained as fruit, born from a fruit, or what prepares fruit, so only what is fruit, born from a fruit, or what prepares fruit⁴³ called משביחי אכילה “food enhancers”, such as costus, amomum, other spices, benjamin, asa foetida, peppers, and saffron.. What is the difference between them? Fish, locusts, truffles, and mushrooms which may be bought with tithe money following Rebbi Aqiba, following Rebbi Ismael they may not be bought⁴⁴, R. Ismael explicitly excludes truffles and mushrooms.. footnotes: ³⁸ This text also is in Maˋaser Šeni ³⁹ Deut ⁴⁰ One of the hermeneutical principles of R. Ismael. Sifra ⁴¹ Anything grown by sexual reproduction from plant or animal living on the land. ⁴² In detail explained Sifry Deut ⁴³ In Sifry ⁴⁴ In Sifra ###### Jerusalem Talmud Eruvin 3:1:5 [Jerusalem Talmud Eruvin 3:1:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Eruvin/r/3:1:5) בַּכֹּל מְעָרְבִין וּמִשְׁתַּתְּפִין חוּץ מִן הַמַּיִם וּמִן הַמֶּלַח. אָמַר רִבִּי יָסָא. לְפִי שֶׁאֵין הַגּוּף נִיזוֹן מֵהֶן. אָמַר רִבִּי לִוֵי. שֶׁהֵן מִין קְלָלָה. אָמַר רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר. עֲשָׂאָן מֵי מֶלַח נִלְקָחִין בְּכֶסֶף מַעֲשֵׂר. רִבִּי אָחָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי מִיַישְּׁא. וְהוּא שֶׁנָּתַן לְתוֹכוֹ שֶׁמֶן. רִבִּי יוֹסֵה בָעֵי. מֵעַתָּה לֹא יֶעֱרַב אֶלָּא לְפִי חֶשְׂבּוֹן שֶׁבָּהֶן. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** “With anything one may make an *eruv* or participate except with water or salt.” Rebbi Yasa said, because the body is not fed by them. Rebbi Levi said, because they are agents of curse⁴⁵. 29:22.. Rebbi Eleazar said, if he made them into brine it may be bought with Tithe money⁴⁶. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Miasha: only if he mixed oil into it. Rebbi Yose asked, then should he be able to use it for *eruv* only in proportion⁴⁷ is determined, brine should be acceptable only if it contains that quantity of oil. Then the mention of brine would be unnecessary.? footnotes: ⁴⁵ Water at the deluge; salt is mentioned Deut ⁴⁶ Babli 27a. ⁴⁷ Since in the following a minimal quantity of oil for a valid eruv ###### Jerusalem Talmud Eruvin 3:1:6 [Jerusalem Talmud Eruvin 3:1:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Eruvin/r/3:1:6) תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן. חֲצִי לוֹג יַיִן. רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אוֹמֵר רְבִיעִית. אָמַר רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר. וְכֵן לְעֵירוּב. אָמַר רִבִּי חִינְנָא. הָדָא דְתֵימַר בְּיַיִן. אֲבָל לֹא בְשֶׁמֶן. מְעָרְבִין מָזוֹן שְׁתֵּי סְעוּדוֹת. תַּנֵּי. מְעָרְבִין בְּחוֹמֵץ מָזוֹן שְׁתֵּי סְעוּדוֹת. תַּנֵּי. מְעָרְבִין בְּשֶׁמֶן מָזוֹן שְׁתֵּי סְעוּדוֹת. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק. כְּדֵי לְטַבֵּל יָרָק הַנֶּאֱגַד מָזוֹן שְׁתֵּי סְעוּדוֹת. רִבִּי יִצְחָק עֲטוֹשִׁיָּא אָמַר קוֹמֵי רִבִּי זְעִירָא מִשּׁוּם דְּבֵית רִבִּי יַנַּאי. אֲפוּנִים חַיִים מְעָרְבִין בָּהֶן. לְמִי נִצְרְכָה. לְרִבִּי מֵאִיר. שֶׁלֹּא תֹאמַר. הוֹאִיל וְהֵן מַסְרִיחִין אֶת הַפֶּה אֵין מְעָרְבִין בָּהֶן. דָּג מְלִיחַ מְעָרְבִין בּוֹ. בָּשָׂר מְלִיחַ מְעָרְבִין בּוֹ. בָּשָׂר חַי מְעָרְבִין בּוֹ. דְּתַנִּינָן. הַבַּבְלִיִּים אוֹכְלִין אוֹתוֹ כְּשֶׁהוּא חַי. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁדַּעְתָּן יָפָה. רִבִּי יוּדָן בָּעֵי. הָדָא כלבודא הוֹאִיל וְאִילֵּין כּוּתָאֵי אֲכָלִין מִינָּהּ חַיָיא מְעָרְבִין בָּהּ. שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר שִׁילַת בְּשֵׁם רַב. פַּעֲפּוּעִין וְגֻדְגְּדָנִיּוֹת וַחֶלֲוּגְלוּגוֹת מְעָרְבִין בָּהֶן. בָּעוּן קוֹמוֹי. אִילֵּין אִינּוּן. אֲמַר לוֹן. קַקּוּלֵי וְחִנְדָּקוּקֵי וּפַרְפָּחִינֵיה. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** ⁴⁸ 8:5 (Notes 56–64,**ק**); a parallel is in the Babli 29a. There we had stated:⁴⁹ 8:5 detailing minimal amounts of produce to be given as tithe of the poor. “Half a *log* of oil. Rebbi Aqiba said, a quarter.” Rebbi Eleazar said, and so it is for an *eruv*. That is for wine, but not for oil, for which one makes an *eruv* with food for two meals⁵⁰. It was stated: One makes an *eruv* with vinegar as food for two meals. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Samuel ben Rebbi Issac, enough to dip bundles of vegetable as food for two meals. Rebbi Isaac of Atosha said before R. Zeˋira in the name of the House of Rebbi Yannai: one may make an *eruv* with raw peas. For whom is this necessary? For Rebbi Meïr, lest you say, because they generate bad mouth odor one may not use them for *eruv*. One may make an *eruv* with salted fish. One may make an *eruv* with salted meat. One may make an *eruv* with raw meat. There, we have stated⁵¹ 11:7, referring to the ram brought as sin-offering on a Day of Atonement that falls on the Sabbath; it must be eaten by the priests before the next morning but cannot be cooked. The priests from Babylonia (in the opinion of the Babli, those from Alexandria) ate it raw after the fast. The text of our Mishnah, “because their taste is refined” is a euphemism.: “The Babylonians eat it raw because their taste is refined.” Rebbi Yudan asked, may one use χαλκίς⁵²; the word here has not been identified. In the Babli (*Avodah zarah* 39b, Tosephta *Avodah zarah* 4:11) the word appears as כילבית or כילכית, identified as a kind of sardine. for *eruv* since the Samaritans eat it raw? Samuel bar Shilat in the name of Rav: One may use for *eruv paˋapuˋin, gudganiot,* and *ḥaluglugot*. They asked him, what are these? He said to them, καυκαλίς⁵³. In Arabic ققل is cardamom, قاقلى an alkaline plant., melilot⁵⁴, and purslain⁵⁵. footnotes: ⁴⁸ The following paragraph also is in Peah ⁴⁹ Mishnah Peah ⁵⁰ Tosephta 6:3. ⁵¹ Mishnah Menaḥot ⁵² χαλκίς, -ίδος, ἡ, a kind of herring or sardine. This translation follows the text in Peah ⁵³ A plant, melilotus officinalis ⁵⁴ Arabic حندقوقا, a kind of tall clover, only barely digestible. ⁵⁵ Arabic فرفخ. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Eruvin 3:1:7 [Jerusalem Talmud Eruvin 3:1:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Eruvin/r/3:1:7) פיס׳. הַנּוֹדֵר מִן הַמָּזוֹן מוּתָּר בַּמַּיִם וּמֶלַח. תַּמָּן תַנִּינָן. הַנּוֹדֵר מִן הַמְבוּשָּׁל מוּתָּר בַּצָּלִי וּבַשָּׁלוּק. מַתְנִיתָא אָמְרָה כֵן. שֶׁהַשָׁלוּק קָרוּי מְבוּשָּׁל. דְּתַנִּינָן. הָיָה מְבַשֵּׁל אֶת הַשְּׁלָמִים אוֹ שׁוֹלְקָן. וְקַרְיָיא אָמַר שֶׁהַצָּלוּי קָרוּי מְבוּשָּׁל. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וַיְבַשְּׁלוּ אֶת הַפֶּסַח בָּאֵשׁ. אִין תֵּימַר. שֶׁלֹּא כַהֲלָכָה. רִבִּי יוֹנָה בּוֹצְרַיָיה אָמַר כַּמִּשְׁפָּט. מַתְנִיתָא שֶׁהַשָׁלוּק קָרוּי מְבוּשָּׁל. וְקַרְיָיא אָמַר שֶׁהַצָּלוּי קָרוּי מְבוּשָּׁל. וְתַנִּינָן. הַנּוֹדֵר מִן הַמְבוּשָּׁל מוּתָּר בַָּצָּלִי וּבַשָּׁלוּק. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. הִילְּכוּ בִנְדָרִים אַחַר לְשׁוֹן בְּנֵי אָדָם. אָמַר רִבִּי יֹאשַׁיָּה. הִילְּכוּ בִנְדָרִים אַחַר לְשׁוֹן תּוֹרָה. מַה נְפַק בֵּינֵיהוֹן. אָמַר. קוֹנָם יַיִן שֶׁאֲנִי טוֹעֵם בַּחַג. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָסוּר בְּיוֹם טוֹב הָאַחֲרוֹן. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי יֹאשַׁיָּה מוּתָּר. אוֹף רִבִּי יֹאשַׁיָּה מוֹדֶה שֶׁהוּא אָסוּר. לֹא אָמַר רִבִּי יֹאשַׁיָּה אֶלָּא לְחוֹמָרִן. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** Paragraph. “One who vows not to eat food is permitted water and salt.” There, we have stated⁵⁶ 6:1.: “One who made a vow to abstain from cooked food is permitted roasted and scalded food.” ⁵⁷ 6:1 (Notes 6–14) and *Nazir* 6:11 (Note 225), cf. Babli *Nedarim* 49a. A Mishnah states that scalding is called cooking, as we have stated⁵⁸ 6:11. The verse *Num*. 6:18 requires the sacrifice to be cooked.: “If he cooked the well-being offering or scalded it.” A verse states that “roasted” is called “cooked” as it is said⁵⁹. 35:13.: *They cooked the Pesaḥ in fire*. If you say, against the rules, Rebbi Jonah from Bostra said, *as is the rule*⁶⁰,*Ex*. 12:9. Cooked would be on the fire, not in it.. A Mishnah [states] that scalded is called cooked, and a verse that roasted is called cooked; but did we not state: “One who makes a vow to abstain from cooked food is permitted roasted and scalded food”? Rebbi Joḥanan said, in matters of vows one follows common usage. Rebbi Joshia said, in matters of vows one follows biblical usage. What is the difference between them? If one said, a *qonam*⁶¹, “(forbidden like) sacrifice” which people were afraid to pronounce in vows. Cf. Introduction to Tractate *Nedarim*. that I shall not taste wine on Tabernacles. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan he is forbidden on the last day of the holiday⁶² but legally is a separate holiday with its own rules.. In the opinion of Rebbi Joshia, is he permitted? Also Rebbi Joshia agrees that he is prohibited. Rebbi Joshia said it only for restrictions. footnotes: ⁵⁶ Mishnah Nedarim ⁵⁷ This paragraph and the next are also in Nedarim ⁵⁸ Mishnah Nazir ⁵⁹ 2Chr ⁶⁰ Roasted in fire ⁶¹ The Phoenician equivalent of Hebrew qorba̅n ⁶² Which in popular consciousness is the last day of Sukkot ###### Jerusalem Talmud Eruvin 3:1:8 [Jerusalem Talmud Eruvin 3:1:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Eruvin/r/3:1:8) אָמַר רִבִּי חִיָיא בַּר בָּא. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָכַל חֲלִיטִן וְאָמַר. לֹא טְעָמִית מִידִי בְּהַהוּא יוֹמָא. וְתַנִּינָן. הַנּוֹדֵר מִן הַמָּזוֹן מוּתָּר בַּמַּיִם וּמֶלַח. פָּתַר לָהּ כְּרִבִּי יֹאשַׁיָּה. דְּרִבִּי יֹאשַׁיָּה אָמַר. הִילְּכוּ בִנְדָרִים אַחַר לְשׁוֹן תּוֹרָה. וּמְנַיֵין שֶׁכָּל הַדְּבָרִים קְרוּיִין מָזוֹן. רִבִּי אָחָא בֵּירִבִּי עוּלָא אָמַר. וְעֶשֶׂר אֲתוֹנוֹת נוֹשְׂאוֹת בָּר וָלֶחֶם וּמָזוֹן. מַה תַלְמוּד לוֹמַר מָזוֹן. אֶלָּא מִיכָּן שֶׁכָּל הַדְּבָרִים קְרוּיִין מָזוֹן. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, Rebbi Joḥanan ate bake-meats and said, I did not taste (anything) [food]⁶³ (in parentheses) has to be emended to the text in *Nedarim* and *Nazir* [in brackets] to make sense. Babli *Berakhot* 44a. on that day. But did we not state: “He who made a vow not to eat food is permitted water and salt”? Explain it following Rebbi Joshia, who said, in matters of vows one follows biblical usage. And from where that everything is called food? Rebbi Aḥa bar Ulla said⁶⁴. 45:23.: *And ten**female donkeys carrying grain, bread, and food*. Why does the verse say, *and food*? From here that everything is called food⁶⁵ 35b.. footnotes: ⁶³ The text of Eruvin ⁶⁴ Gen ⁶⁵ Babli Berakhot ###### Jerusalem Talmud Eruvin 3:1:9 [Jerusalem Talmud Eruvin 3:1:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Eruvin/r/3:1:9) נָדַר מִן הַכִּכָּר מְעָרְבִין בּוֹ. הִקְדִּישׁוֹ אֵין מְעָרְבִין בּוֹ. נָדַר מִן הַכִּכָּר מְעָרְבִין בּוֹ. שֶׁכֵּן אַחֵר רָאוּי לְאוֹכְלוֹ. הִקְדִּישׁוֹ אֵין מְעָרְבִין בּוֹ. שֶׁלֹּא הוּא וְלֹא אַחֵר רְאוּיִין לְאוֹכְלוֹ. רִבִּי אָחָא בָעֵי. וְאֵין אָדָם נִשְׁאַל עַל הֶקְדֵּישׁוֹ. רִבִּי אָחָא אָמַר. רִבִּי מִיָישָׁא בָעֵי. תַּמָּן אָמַר רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן חִיָיה בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אָמַר. עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה שֶׁעֲשָׂאָהּ לֶחִי לְמָבוֹי מַתֶּרֶת אֶת הַמָּבוֹי. וְהָכָא אַתְּ אָמַר הָכֵין. אָמַר רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר. תַּמָּן מִכָּל מָקוֹם נִסְתָּם הַמָּבוֹי. וְהָכָא מָה אִית לָךְ. מְעָרְבִין לַנָּזִיר בַּיַיִן. שֶׁכֵּן אַחֵר רָאוּי לִשְׁתוֹתוֹ. וּלְיִשְׂרָאֵל בַּתְּרוּמָה. שֶׁכֵּן כֹּהֵן רָאוּי לְאוֹכְלָהּ. וְלַכֹּהֵן בְּבֵית הַפְּרַס. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** If he forbade himself a loaf by a vow it may be used as *eruv*, if he dedicated it it may not be used as *eruv*. If he forbade himself a loaf by a vow it may be used as *eruv*, since another person may eat it. If he dedicated it it may not be used as *eruv*, since neither he nor another person may eat it⁶⁶. Rebbi Aḥa asked, may not a person ask about his dedication⁶⁷ on the Sabbath. The Babli notes that the disregard of possible removal of dedication is a separate rabbinic decree.? Rebbi Aḥa said that Rebbi Miasha asked: There Rebbi Simeon⁶⁸ said that Ḥiyya the son of Rav said, if one used idolatry⁶⁹ or an idol, forbidden for all usufruct. to make a lath it permits the alley, and here you are saying so? Rebbi Eleazar said, there in any case the alley was closed; here what do you have⁷⁰? footnotes: ⁶⁶ Babli 30a. ⁶⁷ Since a dedication to the Temple is a vow, a dedication may be removed by rabbinic authority like any other vow. Then the dedicated item reverts to profane status and therefore always was potential food. Naturally the dedicated object should be redeemed and returned to profane status but this is not possible on the Sabbath and therefore not an option to validate an eruv ⁶⁸ This must refer to R. Simeon ben Laqish. ⁶⁹ Wood from an ashera ⁷⁰ Since the lath has no required minimal depth it is a sign, not a material presence. The material could not be used for a beam which has to be three-dimensional material. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Eruvin 3:1:10 [Jerusalem Talmud Eruvin 3:1:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Eruvin/r/3:1:10) מַתְנִיתָא דְבֵית שַׁמַּי. דְּבֵית שַׁמַּי אָמְרִין. אֵין מְעָרְבִין לְאָדָם אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הָיוּ כְלֵי תַשְׁמִישׁוֹ שָׁם. סוּמַכוּס כְּבֵית שַׁמַּי. דְּתַנִּינָן. סוּמַכוּס אוֹמֵר. אַף בַּחוּלִין לַכֹּהֵן בְּבֵית הַפְּרַס. מֵעַתָּה אֲפִילוּ בֵין הַקְּבָרוֹת. רָאוּי הוּא לַעֲבוֹר עַל הַשְּׁבוּת וְלוֹכַל. שֶׁכֵּן הוּא רָאוּי לִיכָּנֵס בְּשִׁידָּה תֵיבָה וּמִגְדָּל וְלַעֲשׂוֹת לוֹ חוֹר פָּחוּת מִטֶּפַח וְלִתְחוֹב בְּכושׁ וּבְקִיסֵּם וְלֶאֱכוֹל. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** ⁷¹“One may make an *eruv* for a *nazir* with wine” for another person may drink it. “And for an Israel with heave,” for a Cohen may eat it. For a Cohen in a *bet happeras*⁷²? The Mishnah follows the House of Shammai, for the House of Shammai say that one may not make an *eruv* for a person unless his personal vessels may be there⁷³ is possible only if a person transports his bed to the place of the *eruv*.. Symmachos follows the House of Shammai as we have stated: “Symmachos says, also with profane food for a Cohen in a *bet happeras*⁴ is at least rabbinically impure and must be burned; it is no longer food..” Then also between the graves? He might transgress a rabbinic prohibition and eat there⁷⁴ is rabbinical, the Cohen could disregard the prohibition without defiling himself biblically.. For he could enter on a bench⁷⁵, in a box or a chest, make a hole less than a hand-breadth [wide]⁷⁶ 3:5. The topic of the Mishnah is the *etro* g,*C* *itrus medica*, a fruit which is part of the “four kinds” of plants carried on Tabernacles., stick a spindle or a splinter into it, and eat it. footnotes: ⁷¹ Here starts a Genizah fragment edited by Ginzberg (pp. 95–101,G). ⁷² In the Mishnah in the Babli and in Maimonides’s autograph Mishnah this is a separate declarative sentence, independent of Symmachos’s statement who there forbids heave for the Israel and requires strictly profane food. In the Yerushalmi Mishnah Symmachos adds to the statement of the anonymous Tanna but he does not disagree with him. Therefore it is impossible to read the Babli’s Mishnah in the Yerushalmi text. ⁷³ In the interpretation of the Babli this means that for the House of Shammai an eruv teḥumin ⁴ A place where a source of impurity is known but its location is unknown. The Cohen may not enter by rabbinic decree but he could be carried there in a wooden box which shields against the impurity of the dead. The food may not be heave since heave in a bet happeras ⁷⁴ This sentence should be read before the preceding one. Since the prohibition of the bet happeras ⁷⁵ Arabic سدّة. It is presumed that the bench is fixed to a flat wooden plank. Since wooden implements which do not enclose a volume are impervious to impurity, the Cohen sitting on the bench can be transported through the cemetery without violating the biblical prohibition of defiling himself with the impurity of the dead. ⁷⁶ Mishnah Sukkah ###### Jerusalem Talmud Eruvin 3:2:1 [Jerusalem Talmud Eruvin 3:2:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Eruvin/r/3:2:1) **משנה:** מְעָרְבִין בַּדְּמַאי וּבְמַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן שֶׁנִּיטְלָה תְרוּמָתוֹ וּבְמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי וְהֶקְדֵּשׁ שֶׁנִּפְדּוּ. הַכֹּהֲנִים בַּחַלָּה וּבַתְּרוּמָה. אֲבָל לֹא בַטֶּבֶל וְלֹא בְמַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן שֶׁלֹּא נִיטְּלָה תְרוּמָתוֹ וְלֹא בְמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי וְהֶקְדֵּשׁ שֶׁלֹּא נִפְדּוּ. הַשּׁוֹלֵחַ אֶת עֵירוּבוֹ בְּיַד חֵרֵשׁ שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן אוֹ בְיַד מִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מוֹדֶה בָעֵירוּב אֵינוֹ עֵירוּב. אִם אָמַר לְאַחֵר לְקַבְּלוֹ מִמֶּנּוּ הֲרֵי זֶה עֵירוּב: **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **MISHNAH:** One may make an *eruv* with *demay*⁵ is produce of which one may assume that heave was taken but one suspects that it was not tithed. While a scrupulous person will not eat *demay* it may be given to the poor and the traveler and therefore is edible food., and with First Tithe from which heave has been taken⁶ and forbidden for consumption; it is not food. First Tithe of which Heave of the Tithe was taken is wholly profane., and Second Tithe or dedicated [food]⁷ which was redeemed; Cohanim with *ḥallah* and with heave. But not with *ṭevel*, nor with First Tithe from which heave was not taken, and Second Tithe or dedicated [food] which was not redeemed. If somebody sends his *eruv*⁸, if the person wanting to change his Sabbath domain does not go by himself to deposit the food, he must send it by a legally competent person. through a deaf-and-dumb or insane person, or a minor, or by somebody who does not accept *eruvin*⁹, cannot be an agent for its creation., it is not an *eruv*. If he told a third person to receive it from him it is an *eruv*¹⁰. footnotes: ⁵ Demay ⁶ Any food of which heave was not taken is ṭevel ⁷ Donated to the Temple to be sold and the proceeds used for the upkeep of the Temple. ⁸ For an eruv teḥumim ⁹ A Sadducee who as a matter of principle denies the possibility of an eruv ¹⁰ In this case the identity of the carrier is irrelevant. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Eruvin 3:2:2 [Jerusalem Talmud Eruvin 3:2:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Eruvin/r/3:2:2) **הלכה:** פיס׳. מְעָרְבִין בַּדְּמַאי וּבְמַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן כול׳. רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב דְּרוֹמִיָּא בָעֵי. מַתְנִיתָה דְלֹא כְבֵית שַׁמַּי. דְּתַנִּינָן. וְשֶׁלְדְּמַאי. בֵּית שַׁמַּי פּוֹסְלִין וּבֵית הִלֵּל מַכְשִׁירִין. וְשֶׁלְמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁינִי בִּירוּשָׁלֵם לֹא יִטּוֹל. וְאִם נָטַל. כָּשֵׁר. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **HALAKHAH:** Paragraph. “One may make an *eruv* with *demay*⁵ is produce of which one may assume that heave was taken but one suspects that it was not tithed. While a scrupulous person will not eat *demay* it may be given to the poor and the traveler and therefore is edible food., and with First Tithe.” Rebbi Jacob the Southerner asked, is our Mishnah not following the House of Shammai? As we have stated⁷⁶ 3:5. The topic of the Mishnah is the *etro* g,*C* *itrus medica*, a fruit which is part of the “four kinds” of plants carried on Tabernacles., “of *demay*, the House of Shammai declare invalid but the House of Hillel declare valid⁷⁷ may not be eaten, for the House of Shammai it is not a fruit and therefore cannot be part of the “four kinds”. By analogy it should be forbidden to use *demay* as food for *eruv*. For the House of Hillel *demay* can always be turned into food even on Sabbath and holidays as explained later by the Elder R. Ḥiyya; therefore it is food in all respects.. Of Second Tithe in Jerusalem one should not take but if he took it is valid⁷⁸ G for a religious ceremony is not consumption; while it is permitted it is inappropriate..” footnotes: ⁵ Demay ⁷⁶ Mishnah Sukkah ⁷⁷ Since demay ⁷⁸ Second tithe has to be consumed in Jerusalem; it is food there. But the use of the etro ###### Jerusalem Talmud Eruvin 3:2:3 [Jerusalem Talmud Eruvin 3:2:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Eruvin/r/3:2:3) רַב שֵׁשֶׁת בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי חִיָיה רֹבָה. טֶבֶל שֶׁיֵּשׁ עָלָיו תְּנַיי מוּתָּר לְטַלְטְלוֹ. כֵּיצַד הוּא עוֹשֶׂה. נוֹתֵן עֵינָיו בְּמִקְצָתוֹ וְאוֹכֵל אֶת הַשְּׁאָר. וְתַנֵּי. בֵּית שַׁמַּי אוֹמְרִים. אֵין מְעָרְבִין בְּמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁינִי בִּירוּשָׁלֵם. אָמַר רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה. הָדָא דְאַתְּ אָמַר. בְּעֵירוּבֵי חֲצֵירוֹת. אֲבָל בְּעֵירוּבֵי תְחוּמִין (בְּקַרְ)תָּנִי שֶׁנָּתַן עֵירוּבוֹ בִּירוּשָׁלֵם שֶׁהוּא יָכוֹל לַעֲלוֹת וּלְאוֹכְלוֹ שָׁם. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** Rav Sheshet in the name of the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya: It is permitted to move *ṭevel*⁶ and forbidden for consumption; it is not food. First Tithe of which Heave of the Tithe was taken is wholly profane. which has a condition on it⁷⁹ is neither food nor an implement and therefore is *muqṣeh*. But if heave and tithes are mentally removed, it becomes food and may be moved and eaten. If one decides on the Sabbath to give after the Sabbath heave and tithes from a certain part of the *ṭevel* produce, the remainder may be eaten. Cf. *Šabbat* 18, Notes 25 ff.. How does he do it? He puts his eyes on a small part and eats the remainder. And it was stated: The House of Shammai say, one does not use Second Tithe as *eruv* in Jerusalem. Rebbi Jeremiah said, this you are saying about *eruv* of courtyards⁸⁰ of courtyards represents a symbolic meal not an actual one. But the *eruv* of domains is to be eaten on the Sabbath; this is appropriate use.. But for an *eruv* of domains, a villager⁸¹ who deposits his *eruv* at Jerusalem can go there and eat it. footnotes: ⁶ Any food of which heave was not taken is ṭevel ⁷⁹ Ṭevel ⁸⁰ This is inappropriate use of Second Tithe since the eruv ⁸¹ G shows that the correct text is בקרתני. This also was the text of the scribe, erroneously changed by the corrector into תני “it was stated”, which is the version of all printed editions but makes no sense here. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Eruvin 3:2:4 [Jerusalem Talmud Eruvin 3:2:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Eruvin/r/3:2:4) שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר. כְּבֶן תֵּשַׁע כְּבֶן עֶשֶׂר עֵירוּבוֹ עֵירוּב. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. הָדָא דְתֵימַר. בְּעֵירוּבֵי תְחוּמִין. אֲבָל בְּעֵירוּבֵי חֲצֵירוֹת אֲפִילוּ קָטָן. אָמַר רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ. מִפְּנֵי מַה מְעָרְבִין בַּחֲצֵירוֹת. מִפְּנֵי דַרְכֵי שָׁלוֹם. מַעֲשֶׂה בְּאִשָּׁה אַחַת שֶׁהָיְתָה דְבוּבָה לַחֲבֵירָתָהּ וְשָׁלְחָה עֵירוּבָהּ גַּבֵּי בְרָהּ. נַסְתֵּיהּ וְגָפַפְתֵּיהּ וּנְשַׁקְתֵּיהּ. אֲתַא וַאֲמַר קוֹמֵי אִימֵּיהּ. אָמְרָה. הָכֵין הֲוָות רַחְמָה לִי וְלָא הֲוִינָא יָדְעָה. מִתּוֹךְ כָּךְ עָשׂוּ שָׁלוֹם. הָדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב דְּרָכֶיהָ דַרְכֵי נוֹעַם וְכָלִ נְתִיבוֹתֶיהָ שָׁלוֹם. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** Samuel said, if he is nine or ten years old his *eruv* is an *eruv*⁸² 5:8, Halakhah 5:9 Notes 234 ff.) he is able to place his food. While a smaller child is not able to do anything of legal consequence, an *eruv* of courtyards is controlled by the recipient of the foodstuffs and for such a small distance an underage child may be used. Babli 31b.. Rebbi Yose said, this you are saying about *eruv* of domains. But for an *eruv* of courtyards, even if he is small. ⁸³ Rebbi Joshua [ben Levi]⁸⁴ said, why does one make *eruv* of courtyards⁸⁵ for courtyards essentially is superfluous. It is required because it is required if there is no alley and because it helps neighborly relations.? Because of peaceful relations. It happened that a woman was hostile to another and sent her her *eruv* through her son. She took him, embraced him, and kissed him. He went and told it before his mother. She said, obviously she loves me and I did not know it. As a consequence they made peace. That is what is written, *its ways are ways of pleasantness and all its paths peace*⁸⁶. 3:17.. footnotes: ⁸² Since at this age he is able to legally buy in a grocery store (Mishnah Giṭṭin ⁸³ The following also is in Chapter 7 (24c l. 74, Note 94, 7). ⁸⁴ Added from G, 7, and its frequent quotes in Medieval sources. ⁸⁵ Assuming that the courtyard participated in an alley, a separate eruv ⁸⁶ Prov ###### Jerusalem Talmud Eruvin 3:2:5 [Jerusalem Talmud Eruvin 3:2:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Eruvin/r/3:2:5) פיס׳. הַשּׁוֹלֵחַ אֶת עֵירוּבוֹ בְּיַד חֵרֵשׁ שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן כול׳. אָמַר רִבִּי לָעְזָר. וְצָרִיךְ לַעֲמוֹד עִמּוֹ. תַּמָּן אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה בְשֵׁם רַב שֵׁשֶׁת רִבִּי לָעְזָר בְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אַבּוּן. בָּאוֹמֵר לַחֲבֵירוֹ. הֲרֵי אֲנִי מְעַשֵּׂר עַל יָדָךְ. אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לַעֲמוֹד עִמּוֹ. וְהָכָא אַתְּ אָמַר הָכֵין. אָמַר רִבִּי חִיָיה בַּר אָדָא. כָּאן בְּגָדוֹל וְכָאן בְּקָטָן. רִבִּי אָחָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי חִינְנָא. וְאֲפִילוּ תֵימַר. כָּאן וְכָאן בְּגָדוֹל וְכָאן בְּקָטוֹן. תַּמָּן בָּאוֹמֵר לוֹ. הֲרֵי אֲנִי מְעַשֵּׂר עַל יָדָךְ. שֶׁאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לַעֲמוֹד עִמּוֹ. בְּרַם הָכָא בָּאוֹמֵר לוֹ. עֲרֵב עַל יָדִי. הָדָא יַלְפָא מִן הַהִיא וְהַהִיא יַלְפָא מִן הָדָא. הָדָא יַלְפָא מִן הַהִיא. שֶׁאִם אָמַר לוֹ. אֲנִי מְעַשֵּׂר עַל יָדָךְ. שֶׁאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לַעֲמוֹד עִמּוֹ. וְהַהִיא יַלְפָא מִן הָדָא. שֶׁאִם אָמַר לוֹ. עֲרֵב עַל יָדִי. שֶׁהוּא צָרִיךְ לַעֲמוֹד עִמּוֹ. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** Paragraph. “If somebody sends his *eruv*⁸, if the person wanting to change his Sabbath domain does not go by himself to deposit the food, he must send it by a legally competent person. through a deaf-and-dumb or insane person, or a minor,” etc. ⁸⁷ 2:1 (Notes 39–43). Rebbi Eleazar said, he has to be with him. There Rebbi Yose said in the name of Rebbi Sheshet, Rebbi Eleazar the son of Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Abun⁸⁸: Abin.: If somebody says to another I shall tithe for you, he does not have to be with him. And here, you say so? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, here about an adult, there about a minor. Rebbi Aḥa said in the name of Rebbi Ḥinena⁸⁹: R. Ḥanania in the name of R. Ḥanina., you may even say in both cases we deal with an adult or in both cases we deal with a minor. There, when he says, I shall tithe for you, he does not have to be with him. But here, he says make an *eruv* for me! This learns from that and that learns from this. This learns from that, if he says I shall tithe for you, he does not have to be with him. That learns from this, if he says make an *eruv* for me, he has to be with him⁹⁰ one has to read: “This learns from that, if he says I shall make an *eruv* for you, he does not have to be with him. That learns from this, if he says tithe for me, he has to be with him.” In any case if the initiative is from the other side he does not have to be there to check but if the initiative is his he has to supervise the minor. Cf. Tosaphot 31b *s. v*. כאן.. footnotes: ⁸ For an eruv teḥumim ⁸⁷ A somewhat differently organized parallel to this paragraph is in Maˋserot ⁸⁸ In Maˋserot ⁸⁹ In Maˋserot ⁹⁰ Since these are the statements one started out with it is clear that with the text in Maˋserot ###### Jerusalem Talmud Eruvin 3:3:1 [Jerusalem Talmud Eruvin 3:3:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Eruvin/r/3:3:1) **משנה:** נְתָנוֹ בָאִילָן לְמַעְלָה מֵעֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים אֵינוֹ עֵרוּב. לְמַטָּה מֵעֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים הֲרֵי זֶה עֵירוּב. נְתָנוֹ בַבּוֹר אֲפִילוּ עָמוֹק מֵאָה אַמָּה הֲרֵי זֶה עֵרוּב. נְתָנוֹ בְרֹאשׁ הַקָּנֶה אוֹ בְרֹאשׁ הַקּוֹנְטֹס כָּל זְמַן שֶׁהוּא תָלוּשׁ וְנָעוּץ אֲפִילוּ גָבוֹהַּ מֵאָה אַמָּה הֲרֵי זֶה עֵירוּב. נְתָנוֹ כַמִּגְדָּל וְנָעַל בְּפָנָיו וְאָבַד הַמַּפְתֵּחַ הֲרֵי זֶה עֵירוּב. רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר אִם אֵין יַדּוּעַ שֶׁהַמַּפְתֵחַ בִּמְקוֹמוֹ אֵינוֹ עֵירוּב: **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **MISHNAH:** If he deposited it in a tree higher than ten hand-breadths it is not an *eruv*; below ten hand-breadths it is an *eruv*¹¹ is deposited is at least 4-by-4 hand-breadths wide, this place is a separate domain. Since it is standing in the public domain the intent of the person making the *eruv* is to spend the Sabbath in the public domain. But then the *eruv* is in a separate private domain if it is at least 10 hand-breadths high. Since climbing on trees is rabbinically forbidden on the Sabbath there is no possibility that the person keep the Sabbath at the place of his *eruv*.. If he put it in a cistern even 100 cubits deep it is an *eruv*¹². If he put it on top of a stick or a pole¹³ as long as it was uprooted and inserted it is an *eruv* even if 100 cubits high. If he put it into a tower it is an *eruv* even if the key was lost. Rebbi Eliezer said, if it is not known that the key is in its place it is no *eruv*¹⁴. footnotes: ¹¹ If the tree is standing in the public domain and the place where the eruv ¹² This is a private domain by construction even if built in the public domain. ¹³ Greek κοντός, ὁ. Since stick or pole are not 16 hand-breadths2 wide at the top they cannot form a separate domain. ¹⁴ The rabbis hold that one can break into the tower even without a key. R. Eliezer holds that one needs a key. If the owner forgot where he put the key it is no obstacle but if the key might be lost it is. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Eruvin 3:3:2 [Jerusalem Talmud Eruvin 3:3:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Eruvin/r/3:3:2) **הלכה:** פיס׳. נְתָנוֹ בָאִילָן לְמַעְלָה מֵעֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים כול׳. הֲרֵי זֶה עֵירוּב וְאָסוּר לְטַלְטְלוֹ. לְמַטָּה מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה מוּתָּר. וְקַשְׁיָא. אִם עֵירוּבוֹ עֵירוּב יְהֵא מוּתָּר לְטַלְטְלוֹ. אִם אָסוּר לְטַלְטְלוֹ לֹא יְהֵא עֵירוּבוֹ עֵירוּב. רָאוּי הוּא לַעֲבוֹר עַל הַשְּׁבוּת וְלֶאֱכוֹל. מֵעַתָּה אֲפִילוּ לְמַעֲלָה מֵעֲשָׂרָה. רַב יְהוּדָה בְשֵׁם שְׁמוּאֵל. תִּיפְתָּר שֶׁהָיְתָה כוֹרָתוֹ אַרְבָּעָה. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא. וְהוּא שֶׁתְּהֵא רְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים מַקִּפְתוֹ מִכָּל צַד. בָּאוֹמֵר. שְׁבִיתָתִי תַחְתָּיו. תַּנֵּי. נְתָנוֹ בַכַּלְכָּלָה וּתְלָייוֹ בָאִילָן. לְמַעְלָה מֵעֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים אֵינוֹ עֵירוּב. לְמַטָּה מֵעֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים עֵירוּבוֹ עֵירוּב וְאָסוּר לְטַלְטְלוֹ. לְמַטָּה מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה מוּתָּר. וְקַשְׁיָא. אִם עֵירוּבוֹ עֵירוּב יְהֵא מוּתָּר לְטַלְטְלוֹ. אִם אָסוּר לְטַלְטְלוֹ לֹא יְהֵא עֵירוּבוֹ עֵירוּב. רִבִּי אָחָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי חִינְנָא. רָאוּי הוּא לְהוֹפְכָהּ וּלְבַטֵּל רָשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד שֶׁבָּהּ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. הָדָא אָמְרָה. סַפְסָל שֶׁהוּא נָתוּן בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים גָּבוֹהַּ עֲשָׂרָה וְרָחַב אַרְבָּעָה. מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁהוּא רָאוּי לְהוֹפְכוֹ וּלְבַטֵּל רְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד שֶׁבּוֹ. הָדָא אָמְרָה שֶׁעֵירוּבוֹ עֵירוּב וּמוּתָּר לְטַלְטְלוֹ. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **HALAKHAH:** Paragraph. “If he deposited it in a tree more than ten hand-breadths high,” etc. ⁹¹ 2:4 (52d l. 66, **ס**). The next one also is found there but rearranged that “here” and “there” correctly point to *Sukkah* and *Eruvin*. It is an *eruv* but it is forbidden to move it⁹² placed on a tree less than ten hand-breadths high. The prohibitions here are rabbinic (“forbidden” but not “liable”).; below three it is permitted⁹³. This is difficult. If his *eruv* is a [valid] *eruv* one should be permitted to move it. If one is forbidden to move it his *eruv* should not be a [valid] *eruv*. He might transgress the rabbinic prohibition and eat. Then also higher than ten [hand-breadths]⁹⁴ placed higher than 10 hand-breadths be invalid since one could climb the tree in violation of the rabbinic prohibition.? Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel, explain it if its stem was four [hand-breadths]¹¹ is deposited is at least 4-by-4 hand-breadths wide, this place is a separate domain. Since it is standing in the public domain the intent of the person making the *eruv* is to spend the Sabbath in the public domain. But then the *eruv* is in a separate private domain if it is at least 10 hand-breadths high. Since climbing on trees is rabbinically forbidden on the Sabbath there is no possibility that the person keep the Sabbath at the place of his *eruv*.. Rebbi Mana said, only if the public domain surrounds it on all sides; he says my Sabbath rest shall be below it⁹⁵ placed 10 hand-breadths high are invalid; only if the tree is in the public domain, the place of the *eruv* forms a separate private domain of 4-by-4 hand-breadths, and the person making the *eruv* does not intend to climb the tree at sundown (which would be permitted).. It was stated: If he put it in a basket and hung it on a tree, higher than ten hand-breadths high it is not an *eruv*; below ten hand-breadth it is an *eruv* but it is forbidden to move it; below three it is permitted. This is difficult. If his *eruv* is a [valid] *eruv* one should be permitted to move it. If one is forbidden to move it his *eruv* should not be a [valid] *eruv*. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ḥinena: He might turn it upside down and annul the private domain created by it⁹⁶ valid. Babli 33a,b.. Rebbi Yose said, this implies that a bench in the public domain high ten and wide four [hand-breadths], since one may tilt it and annul the private domain created by it, it implies that his *eruv* is a [valid] *eruv* and it is permitted to move it⁹⁷. footnotes: ⁹¹ This paragraph also is in Sukkah ⁹² As is clear from G, this refers to an eruv ⁹³ Anything below 3 hand-breadths is as lying on the ground, not on the tree. Babli 33a, Tosephta 2:13. ⁹⁴ If one entertains the possibility that people would disregard rabbinic prohibitions, why would an eruv ¹¹ If the tree is standing in the public domain and the place where the eruv ⁹⁵ Not all eruvim ⁹⁶ Since the basket can be turned and emptied while hanging on the tree it is not moved from its place, the food is accessible, and the eruv ⁹⁷ If the food is on the bench, one may tilt the bench, the food falls down and is accessible. In this and the preceding case the prohibition of transporting cannot apply to the food. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Eruvin 3:3:3 [Jerusalem Talmud Eruvin 3:3:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Eruvin/r/3:3:3) תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן. שְׁתַּיִם בִּידֵי אָדָם וְאַחַת בָּאִילָן. אוֹ שְׁתַּיִם בָּאִילָן וְאַחַת בִּידֵי אָדָם. כְּשֵׁירָה. וְאֵין עוֹלִין לָהּ בְּיוֹם טוֹב. וְהָכָא אַתְּ אָמַר. עֵירוּבוֹ עֵירוּב וּמוּתָּר לְטַלְטְלוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה. כָּאן לְמַעֲלָן וְכָאן מִן הַצָּד. הָדָא יַלְפָא מִן הַהִיא וְהַהִיא יַלְפָא מִן הָדָא. הָדָא יַלְפָא מִן הַהִיא. שֶׁאִם הָיוּ שְׁתֵּי יְתֵידוֹת יוֹצְאוֹת וְסִיכֵּךְ עַל גַּבֵּיהֶן שֶׁהִיא כְשֵׁירָה וְעוֹלִין לָהּ בְּיוֹם טוֹב. וְהַהִיא יַלְפָא מִן הָדָא. שֶׁאִם הָיָה נָתוּן בְּאִיבּוֹ שֶׁלְאִילָן שֶׁעֵירוּבוֹ עֵירוּב וְאָסוּר לְטַלְטְלוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. בֵּין הָכָא בֵין תַּמָּן מִן הַצָּד הִיא. מַאי כְדוֹן. כַּיי דָמַר רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי זְעִירָא. דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר הִיא. דְּתַנֵּי. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר. מוּתָּר לְהִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ עַל צְדָדֵי בְהֵמָה בַשַּׁבָּת. הִיא צְידָדֵי בְהֵמָה הִיא צְידָדֵי אִילָן. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** There, we have stated⁹⁸ 2:4. A booth (*sukkah*) for Tabernacles must have a thatched roof and at least three walls. Up to two walls can be tree trunks. Since biblically one is forbidden to cut or pluck anything from a tree on a holiday, rabbinically one is forbidden to climb on it. The Mishnah permits the use of the trunks as walls on the intermediate days of Tabernacles but not on the holiday.: “Two human-made and one a tree, or two as trees and one human-made is valid but one may not enter it on the holiday.” [Here you are saying it is valid but one may not enter it on the holiday]⁹⁹). but there you are saying his *eruv* is a [valid] *eruv* and it is permitted to move it⁹⁷. Rebbi Jeremiah said, one on top, the other at the side¹⁰⁰. This learns from that and that learns from this. This learns from that, if there were two pegs protruding and he thatched over them it is valid and one uses it on the holiday¹⁰¹ Chapter 5 Notes 39–43. Cf. Babli *Šabbat* 154b.. That learns from this, if he put it on a tree branch his *eruv* is a [valid] *eruv* and it is forbidden to move it¹⁰². Rebbi Yose said, in both cases it is at the side. How is that? As Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: This is Rebbi Eleazar ben Simon’s, as Rebbi Eleazar ben Simon says, one is permitted to use the sides of an animal on the Sabbath. There is no difference between sides of an animal and sides of a tree¹⁰³ in a cistern always is valid. If the cistern is surrounded by public domain, it is a separate private domain. How can anybody have an *eruv* in a domain different from where he would be on the Sabbath? The answer is that the cistern must be dry and he intends to take the bottom of the cistern as his place of Sabbath rest.. footnotes: ⁹⁸ Mishnah Sukkah ⁹⁹ Added from G (and the parallel in Sukkah ⁹⁷ If the food is on the bench, one may tilt the bench, the food falls down and is accessible. In this and the preceding case the prohibition of transporting cannot apply to the food. ¹⁰⁰ Since the roof must be on top of the walls, in the case of the Mishnah it must rest on the top of the trees (or top of branches) which is rabbinically forbidden. But the basket is on the side of the trunk and the statement follows the opinion that the sides of tree trunks may be used on Sabbaths and holidays. ¹⁰¹ Šabbat ¹⁰² This is the corrector’s text. The scribe wrote correctly אין “you cannot consider …”. ¹⁰³ This refers to the statement in Mishnah 3 that an eruv ###### Jerusalem Talmud Eruvin 3:3:4 [Jerusalem Talmud Eruvin 3:3:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Eruvin/r/3:3:4) אֵיךְ אַתְּ רוֹאֶה עָמוֹק כְּגָבוֹהַּ. אַבָּא בַּר רַב חוּנָה אָמַר. בָּאוֹמֵר. שְׁבִיתָתוֹ תַּחְתָּיו. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** How¹⁰² can you consider deep as high? Abba bar Rav Ḥuna said, if one said, my Sabbath rest is below¹⁰³ in a cistern always is valid. If the cistern is surrounded by public domain, it is a separate private domain. How can anybody have an *eruv* in a domain different from where he would be on the Sabbath? The answer is that the cistern must be dry and he intends to take the bottom of the cistern as his place of Sabbath rest.. footnotes: ¹⁰² This is the corrector’s text. The scribe wrote correctly אין “you cannot consider …”. ¹⁰³ This refers to the statement in Mishnah 3 that an eruv ###### Jerusalem Talmud Eruvin 3:3:5 [Jerusalem Talmud Eruvin 3:3:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Eruvin/r/3:3:5) נְתָנוֹ בְרֹאשׁ הַקָּנֶה אוֹ בְרֹאשׁ הַקּוֹנְטֹס. כָּל זְמַן שֶׁהוּא תָלוּשׁ וְנָעוּץ אֲפִילוּ גָבוֹהַּ מֵאָה אַמָּה הֲרֵי זֶה עֵירוּב. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא תָלוּשׁ וְנָעוּץ. הָא אִם אֵינוֹ תָלוּשׁ וְנָעוּץ אֵין עֵירוּבוֹ עֵירוּב. לֵית פְלִיגָא עַל שְׁמוּאֵל. דָּמַר רַב יְהוּדָה בְשֵׁם שְׁמוּאֵל. תִּיפְתָּר בְּשֶׁהָיְתָה כוֹרָתוֹ אַרְבָּעָה. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא. וְהוּא שֶׁתְּהֵא טַבֻּלָה נְתוּנָה בְרֹאשׁוֹ. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** “If he put it on top of a stick or a pole¹³ as long as it was uprooted and inserted it is an *eruv* even if 100 cubits high.” Because it was uprooted and inserted; therefore if it was not uprooted and inserted his *eruv* is not a [valid]*eruv*. Does this not disagree with Samuel¹⁰⁴ becomes invalid only if it is in an isolated private domain in the public domain. This has nothing to do with the difference between a tree and a pole. A different explanation in the Babli, 34b., as Rav Jehudah said in the name of Samuel, explain it if its stem was four [hand-breadths]? Rebbi Mana said, only if a table was put on its top¹⁰⁵ deposited there would be as invalid as one deposited in a tree.. footnotes: ¹³ Greek κοντός, ὁ. Since stick or pole are not 16 hand-breadths2 wide at the top they cannot form a separate domain. ¹⁰⁴ He explained earlier (Note 95) that the eruv ¹⁰⁵ If the pole or column was topped by a table measuring at least 4-by-4 hand-breadths, the eruv ###### Jerusalem Talmud Eruvin 3:3:6 [Jerusalem Talmud Eruvin 3:3:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Eruvin/r/3:3:6) תַּנֵּי. רִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר. אִם בַּשָּׁדֶה אָבַד אֵין עֵירוּבוֹ עֵירוּב. אִם בָּעִיר אָבַד הֲרֵי זֶה עֵירוּב. אִם בַּשָּׁדֶה אָבַד אֵין עֵירוּבוֹ עֵירוּב. שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לַהֲבִיאוֹ דֶּרֶךְ שְׁבִיתָה. אִם בָּעִיר אָבַד הֲרֵי זֶה עֵירוּב. שֶׁהוּא יָכוֹל לַהֲבִיאוֹ דֶּרֶךְ פְּטוֹר. יְאוּת אָמַר רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר. מַה טַעֲמֵיהּ דְּרַב. אָמַר רִבִּי בָּא בָּרֵיהּ דְּרַב פַּפַּי. דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר הִיא. דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר אָמַר. אַף פּוֹחֵת הוּא כַתְּחִילָּה וְנוֹטֵל. כְּלוּם אָמַר רִבִּי מֵאִיר לֹא בְיוֹם טוֹב. דִּילְמָא בַשַּׁבָּת. וְהָכָא בַשַּׁבָּת אַנָן קַיָימִין. אָמַר רִבִּי אַבָּמָרִי. דְּרִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב הִיא. דְּתַנִּינָן תַָּמָּן. רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר. קוֹשְׁרִין לִפְנֵי בְהֵמָה בִּשְׁבִיל שֶׁלֹּא תֵצֵא. הִיא קְשִׁירָה הִיא נְעִילָה. הָדָא דְתֵימַר. בְּמִגְדָּל שֶׁלְאֶבֶן. אֲבָל בְּמִגְדָּל שֶׁלְעֵץ נַעֲשֶׂה כְּשׁוֹבֵר אֶת הֵֶחָבִית לוֹכַל מִמֶּנָּהּ גְּרוּגְרוֹת. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** It was stated:¹⁰⁶ deposited in a tower when the key was lost. “Rebbi Eliezer¹⁰⁷ says, if it was lost in the field his *eruv* is not a [valid] *eruv*; if it was lost in town his *eruv* is a [valid] *eruv*.” If it was lost in the field his *eruv* is not a [valid] *eruv*, for he cannot bring it¹⁰⁸ in a Sabbath way. If it was lost in town his *eruv* is a [valid] *eruv*, for he can bring it through exempt space¹⁰⁹ 1 Note 109), in theory one may move things there even without an *eruv* by climbing over rooftops.. Rebbi Eleazar said it correctly: what is the reason (of Rav) [of the rabbis]¹¹⁰? Rebbi Abba the son of Rav Pappai said, it is Rebbi Meïr’s since Rebbi Meïr said, “he even originally reduces and takes.¹¹¹ 4:3. If produce is stored in a makeshift building formed by bricks without mortar, R. Meïr permits removing bricks to create an opening to get to the produce.” Rebbi Meïr said this only for a holiday, maybe for the Sabbath¹¹²? But here we are concerned with the Sabbath! Rebbi Abba Mari said, it is Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob’s, as we have stated there¹¹³ 15:2, Note 6., “Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob said, one may tie in front of an animal that it should not leave.” There is no difference between tying and locking. That means, about a stone tower. But for a wooden tower he is like one who breaks the amphora to eat dried figs from it¹¹⁴ 22:3. Quoted Tosaphot 34b *s. v*. ואמאי.. footnotes: ¹⁰⁶ Tosephta 2:15, about the eruv ¹⁰⁷ With G and the Tosephta read: Eleazar. ¹⁰⁸ A replacement key. ¹⁰⁹ Since the roofs of houses are exempt space (Šabbat ¹¹⁰ The correct reading is that of G [in brackets]. The rabbis are the opponents of R. Eleazar in the Tosephta. ¹¹¹ Mishnah Besah ¹¹² It is true that removing bricks which were laid without mortar cannot be classified as destroying a building by biblical standards, but this does not imply that the rabbinic prohibition of this activity was waved on a Sabbath where preparation of food is forbidden. ¹¹³ Mishnah Šabbat ¹¹⁴ Which is permitted on the Sabbath, Mishnah Šabbat ###### Jerusalem Talmud Eruvin 3:4:1 [Jerusalem Talmud Eruvin 3:4:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Eruvin/r/3:4:1) **משנה:** נִתְגַּלְגַּל חוּץ לַתְּחוּם וְנָפַל עָלָיו גַּל אוֹ נִשְׂרַף אוֹ תְרוּמָה וְנִיטְמֵאת מִבְּעוֹד יוֹם אֵינוֹ עֵירוּב. מִשֶׁחָשֵׁיכָה הֲרֵי זֶה עֵירוּב. אִם סָפֵק רִבִּי מֵאִיר וְרִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר הֲרֵי זֶה חַמָּר גַּמָּל. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר סְפֵק הָעֵירוּב כָּשֵׁר. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי הֵעִיד אַבְטוֹלָס מִשֵּׁם חֲמִשָּׁה זְקֵנִים שֶׁסְּפֵק הָעֵירוּב כָּשֵׁר: **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **MISHNAH:** If it rolled outside the Sabbath boundary, if a pile fell on it, or it was burned or heave which became impure on Friday afternoon it is not *eruv*. After dark it is an *eruv*¹⁵ remains in force.. If it is a matter of uncertainty, Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Jehudah say, he is a donkey driver-camel driver¹⁶; it is not at the place of the *eruv* since the latter might be invalid. He might be able to walk between house and *eruv* but at each endpoint not one step further.. Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon say that in case of doubt an *eruv* is qualified. Rebbi Yose said, Autolas¹⁷ testified in the name of five Elders that in case of a doubt an *eruv* is qualified¹⁸ is a rabbinic institution to allow carrying in or walking to places biblically permitted, in cases of doubt one has to permit.. footnotes: ¹⁵ The food must be available at the beginning of the Sabbath. Since it is a symbolic Sabbath meal it may be eaten at any time on the Sabbath; therefore if it is lost during the Sabbath the eruv ¹⁶ The donkey driver walks behind his animal, the camel driver in front of it. The donkey-camel driver is in an impossible situation, by analogy his situation is impossible; the person’s Sabbath rest is not at his home since he made an eruv ¹⁷ In other sources the name is אבטולמוס (Ptolemaios). ¹⁸ Since the eruv ###### Jerusalem Talmud Eruvin 3:4:2 [Jerusalem Talmud Eruvin 3:4:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Eruvin/r/3:4:2) **הלכה:** פיס׳. נִתְגַּלְגַּל חוּץ לַתְּחוּם כול׳. לֹא אָמְרוּ אֶלָּא וְנִיטְמֵאת. סָפֵק נִיטְמֵאת מִבְּעוֹד יוֹם סָפֵק נִיטְמֵאת מִשֶּׁחָשֵׁיכָה. אֲבָל אִם הָיְתָה סָפֵק טְהוֹרָה סָפֵק טְמֵיאָה מְעָרְבִין בָּהּ. רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹנָתָן. אַחַר חֲזָקוֹת הִלְּכוּ. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **HALAKHAH:** Paragraph. “If it rolled outside the Sabbath boundary,” etc. They said only “if it became impure.¹¹⁵ made with heave, which is food only if pure. The Mishnah only deals with the case that there is certainty that the heave became impure, the only question is when it happened. The *eruv* is valid if and only if the heave was pure at the beginning of the Sabbath at sundown or in early twilight. Babli 36a.” A doubt whether it became impure when it still was daylight, a doubt whether it became impure in the night. But if there was a doubt whether it was pure or impure one may use it for an *eruv*¹¹⁶ was deposited in the public domain, any doubt whether there is purity has to be resolved in favor of purity (cf. *Soṭah* 1:2 Note 88). The Babli 36a disagrees.. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: They followed the *status quo ante*¹¹⁷ 6:3 (Note 87).. footnotes: ¹¹⁵ Mishnah 4, the case of an eruv ¹¹⁶ If the eruv ¹¹⁷ Both groups, R. Meïr and R. Jehudah who are restrictive and R. Yose and R. Simeon who are lenient agree with the principle that in cases of doubt one presumes the permanence of the prior state; cf. Giṭṭin ###### Jerusalem Talmud Eruvin 3:4:3 [Jerusalem Talmud Eruvin 3:4:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Eruvin/r/3:4:3) מְתִיבִין רִבִּי מֵאִיר וְרִבִּי יוּדָה לְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי וּלְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. אִילּוּ נֶאֱכַל מִבְּעוֹד יוֹם שֶׁמָּא אֵינוֹ אָסוּר. לְעוֹלָם הוּא בְהֵיתֵירוֹ עַד שֶׁיִּוָודַע לוֹ שֶׁהוּא אָסוּר. מְתִיבִין רִבִּי יוֹסֵה וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לְרִבִּי מֵאִיר וּלְרִבִּי יוּדָה. אִילּוּ נֶאֱכַל מִשֶּׁחָשֵׁיכָה שֶׁמָּא אֵינוֹ מוּתָּר. לְעוֹלָם הוּא בְאִיסּוּרוֹ עַד שֶׁיִּוָודַע לוֹ שֶׁהוּא מוּתָּר. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Jehudah objected to Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon¹¹⁸. R. Yose and R. Simeon define the prior state by the fact that a valid *eruv* was made sometime on Friday; it may be invalidated only by the certain knowledge that it was invalid at the beginning of twilight. An *eruv teḥumim* may be eaten immediately after nightfall.: If it had been eaten when it still was daylight (could it be permitted?) [would it not be forbidden?]¹¹⁹ It remains in its permitted state until it becomes known to you that it is forbidden. Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon objected to Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Jehudah: If it had been eaten after nightfall (could it be prohibited?) [would it not be permitted?]¹¹⁹ It remains in its prohibited state until it becomes known to you that it is permitted. footnotes: ¹¹⁸ R. Meïr and R. Jehudah define the prior state by the fact that a person is prohibited from leaving his place on the Sabbath. This prohibition can only be liftedif it is certain that there was a valid eruv ¹¹⁹ The text in parentheses is that of the scribe of L and of G, which has to be accepted as the original text. The text in brackets is the corrector’s and all printed editions. The meaning is the same; the original text had two rhetorical questions, the corrected text two correct statements. ¹¹⁹ The text in parentheses is that of the scribe of L and of G, which has to be accepted as the original text. The text in brackets is the corrector’s and all printed editions. The meaning is the same; the original text had two rhetorical questions, the corrected text two correct statements. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Eruvin 3:4:4 [Jerusalem Talmud Eruvin 3:4:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Eruvin/r/3:4:4) מָהוּ לִיתֵּן לוֹ אַלְפַּיִים אַמָּה מֵעֵירוּבוֹ לְבֵיתוֹ. רִבִּי בָּא בַּר מָמָל אָמַר. נוֹתְנִין לוֹ. רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק אָמַר. אֵין נוֹתְנִין לוֹ. רִבִּי שַׁמַּי אָמַר קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אָחָא. מַה פְלִיגִין כְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר. בְּרַם כְּרִבִּי יוּדָה כָּל עַמָּא מוֹדֵיי שֶׁנּוֹתְנִין לוֹ. וְלֹא דָמֵי חַמָּר וְגַּמָּל דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר לְחַמָּר וְגַּמָּל דְּרִבִּי יוּדָה. חַמָּר וְגַּמָּל דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר בְּעֵירוּבוֹ אֵינוֹ. שֶׁלֹּא זָכָה לוֹ עֵירוּבוֹ. לַעֲקוֹר אֶת רַגְלָיו מִבְּנֵי עִירוֹ. חַמָּר וְגַּמָּל דְּרִבִּי יוּדָה שֶׁנָּתַן דַּעְתוֹ לַעֲקוֹר רַגְלָיו מִבְּנֵי עִירוֹ. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** Does one give him the 2’000 [cubits] to his house¹²⁰. The distinction between the argument of R. Meïr and that of R. Jehudah refers to Mishnah 4:10 about a person who was going to another place and promised to make an *eruv* on the way for the townspeople but then did not keep his word, where R. Jehudah lets him go since by his action he has shown that he does not want to be counted with the townspeople, whereas R. Meïr makes him donkey-camel driver with only 4 cubits to move in. A different version is given later (Chapter 4, Note 21); *Qiddušin* 3:3 (Note 128): R. Yose said, R. Meïr said this only as a restriction. In this version, he agrees in principle with R. Jehudah but fines people acting stupidly.? Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, one gives him. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, one does not give him. Rebbi Shammai said before Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: They disagree following Rebbi Meïr, but following Rebbi Jehudah everybody agrees that one gives him. The donkey driver-camel driver of Rebbi Meïr cannot be compared to the donkey driver-camel driver of Rebbi Jehudah. The donkey driver-camel driver of Rebbi Meïr cannot use his *eruv* since his *eruv* did not have the power to pull out his feet away from the people of his place; the donkey driver-camel driver of Rebbi Jehudah was thinking to pull out his feet away from the people of his place. footnotes: ¹²⁰ As explained in Note 16, the question is whether he may walk in the domain which is common to the Sabbath domain of his house and the Sabbath domain defined by his eruv ###### Jerusalem Talmud Eruvin 3:4:5 [Jerusalem Talmud Eruvin 3:4:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Eruvin/r/3:4:5) תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן. סְפֵיקוֹ טָהוֹר. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי מְטַמֵּא. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹנָה. לֹא טִימֵּא רִבִּי יוֹסֵה אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם הוֹכֵחַ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹנָה. וַאֲפִילוּ מָקוֹם אֶחָד רִבִּי יוֹסֵי מְטַמֵּא. מִחְלְפָה שִׁיטָּתֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵה. דְּתַנִינָן. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. הֵעִיד אַבְטוֹלָס בְּשֵׁם חֲמִשָּׁה זְקֵינִים שֶׁסְּפֵק הָעֵירוּב כָּשֵׁר. וָכָא אַתְּ אָמַר הָכֵין. תַּמָּן בְּשֵׁם גַּרְמֵיהּ. בְּרַם הָכָא בְשֵׁם חֲמִשָּׁה זְקֵנִים. הֲווֹן בָּעֵיי מֵימַר. מַאן דָּמַר תַּמָּן טָהוֹר אָמַר הָכָא מוּתָּר. מַאן דָּמַר תַּמָּן טָמֵא אָמַר הָכָא אָסוּר. וַאֲפִילוּ כְּמַאן דָּמַר תַּמָּן טָמֵא. מוֹדֵי הוּא הָכָא שֶׁהוּא מוּתָּר. אָמַר רִבִּי חִינְנָא. כְּלוּם אִינּוּן פְּלִיגִין תַּמָּן לֹא מִדִּבְרֵיהֶן. וֹסְפֵק דִּבְרֵיהֶן לְהָקֵל. וְעֵירוּב דְּבַר תּוֹרָה. וּסְפֵק דְּבַר תּוֹרָה לְהַחֲמִיר. וְעֵירוּב דְּבַר תּוֹרָה. רִבִּי יוֹנָתָן אָמַר קוֹמֵי רִבִּי חִיָיה רוֹבָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֵּירִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן לַקוֹנִיָּא. לוֹקִין עַל תְּחוּמֵי שַׁבָּת דְּבַר תּוֹרָה. אָמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי חִיָיה רוֹבָה. וַהֲלֹא אֵין בַּשַּׁבָּת אֶלָּא סְקִילָה וְכָרֵת. אָמַר לֵיהּ. וְהָכְתִיב אַל תֹּאכְלוּ מִמֶּנּוּ נָא. אָמַר לֵיהּ מַה כְתִיב לֹא. אַל כְּתִיב. אָמַר לֵיהּ. וְהָכְתִיב שְׁבוּ אִישׁ תַּחְתָּיו אַל יֵצֵא אִישׁ מִמְּקוֹמוֹ בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי. אָמַר לֵיהּ. מַה כְתִיב לֹא. אַל כְּתִיב. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. אַף עַל פִּי כֵן זֶה עוֹמֵד בִּשְׁמוּעָתוֹ וְזֶה עוֹמֵד בִּשְׁמוּעָתוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר סוֹסַרְטָא. עֵירוּב עָשׂוּ אוֹתוֹ כִּסְפֵק חֵרֵשׁ. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה בָעֵי. עַד כְּדוֹן בְּקַיָים. וְאֲפִילוּ נִשְׂרַף. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. קִיַימְתִּיהָ כַּיי דָּמַר רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה. הִגִּיעוּךָ סוֹף תְּחוּמֵי שַׂבָּת שֶׁאֵינָן מְחוָורִין מִדְּבַר תּוֹרָה. רִבִּי מָנָא בָעֵי. נִיחָא אַלְפַּיִים אַמָּה אֵינוֹ מְחוּוָר. אַרְבָּעַת אֲלָפִים אַמָּה מְחוּוָר הוּא. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בַּר כַּרְסָנָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אָחָא. אֵין לָךְ מְחוּוָר מִכּוּלָּם אֶלָּא תְחוּם שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר מִיל כְּמַחֲנֶה יִשְׂרָאֵל. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** There, we have stated¹²¹ 2:2. The Mishnah states that if a person was impure by biblical standards he can be purified only by immersion in a *miqweh* which is unquestionably valid. But if his impurity is rabbinic, immersion in a *miqweh* will purify him unless the *miqweh* is unquestionably invalid. R. Yose disagrees and holds that the principle of permanence of the *status quo ante* also applies to rabbinic impurity and the *miqweh* must be unquestionably valid.: “If there is a doubt, it is pure; Rebbi Yose declares it impure.” Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Yose declared it impure only because of proof¹²² 2:1 2 of paragraph; *Terumot* 4:8 Note 83.) The Mishnah quotes the case that there be two *miqwaot*, one of them known to be invalid, while the other might be valid. If the person does not know in which of the two he immersed, R. Yose holds that it must have been the invalid one.. And Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Yose declares impure even (one place) [one *miqweh*]¹²³ even if nothing is certain and there is only one item.. The argument of Rebbi Yose seems inverted, as we have stated: “Rebbi Yose said, Autolas¹⁷ testified in the name of five Elders that in case of a doubt an *eruv* is qualified¹⁸ is a rabbinic institution to allow carrying in or walking to places biblically permitted, in cases of doubt one has to permit..” And here you are saying so? There in his own name, but here in the name of five Elders. They wanted to say that he who says there “pure” says here “permitted”; he who says there “impure” says here “prohibited”. But even he who says there “impure” agrees here that it is permitted¹²⁴ are all rabbinic.. Rebbi Ḥinena said, do they not only disagree about their words? And a doubt about their words is for leniency¹²⁵ clearly distinguishes between biblical and rabbinic impurity and decrees leniency only for rabbinic cases; for him the rules of *eruv teḥumim* are all biblical; only *eruv ḥaṣerot* is rabbinical.. But an *eruv* is a word of Torah; and a doubt about a word of the Torah is for restriction¹²⁶ 1:1 Note 21. But is *eruv* a word of the Torah? Rebbi Jonathan said before the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi Yose ben Laqonia: One whips because of Sabbath domains as word of the Torah¹²⁷. Rebbi Ḥiyya the Elder said to him, but for Sabbath there is only stoning or extirpation¹²⁸? He said to him, is there not written¹²⁹. 12:9., *do not eat from it raw*? He said to him, is there written לֹא? No, it is written אַל! He said to him, is there not written¹³⁰. 16:29. Even though this is the sequence of the sentences also in G, it is clear that the order has to be inverted. R. Jonathan first quoted *Ex*. 16:29 as proof that leaving one’s domain on the Sabbath is a biblical violation. Since no punishment is stated, the standard sanction of flogging applies. To this R. Ḥiyya replies that the standard sanction applies only to prohibitions introduced by לֹא, not to admonitions formulated with אַל. R. Jonathan retorts that this explanation is impossible since eating the Passover sacrifice raw is a punishable transgression forbidden by אַל., *stay everybody where he is, no person shall leave his place on the Seventh day*? He said to him, is there written לֹא? No, it is written אַל. Rebbi ben Rebbi Abun said, nevertheless each one kept to his tradition¹³¹ certainly is a rabbinic interpretation of the rules.. Rebbi Samuel bar Sosarta said, they treated *eruv* as a doubt involving a deaf-mute person¹³². Rebbi Jeremiah asked, so far if it exists, or even if it was burned¹³³ still exists. But if it was burned (as mentioned in the Mishnah) it should be impossible to invoke a principle of permanence of the *status quo ante*.? Rebbi Yose said, I confirmed this following what Rebbi¹³⁴ Hoshaia said: You must conclude that the boundaries of Sabbath domains are not clear in the words of the Torah. Rebbi Mana asked, it is accepted that 2’000 cubits is not clear¹³⁵. 35:5) where the Sabbath is not mentioned. The measure therefore has only rabbinic status. Babli 36a, *Beṣah* 36b. The Sadducee Damascus Document (CD A x) accepts a limit of 1’000 cubits (*Num*. 35:4) for humans and 2’000 cubits for animals (CD A xi) as biblical.. Are 4’000 cubits not clear? Rebbi Simeon bar Carsana in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: The only clear case among all of them is the domain of twelve *mil* of the camp of Israel¹³⁶. 2 was 3 *parsah* (12 *mil* or 90 itinerant *stadia*): *Ševiˋit* 6:1 (Note 28), copied in G*ittin* 1:2 (Note 94), Babli *Berakhot* 54b, *Eruvin* 53b, *Yoma* 75b.. footnotes: ¹²¹ Mishnah Miqwaot ¹²² If there are a group of items, the status of one is certain but that of the others is uncertain, one may assume that the other items share the status of the certain one unless proven otherwise (cf. Demay ¹²³ The text in parentheses is from L, that in brackets from G. The preceding argument is rejected, R. Yose applies the principle of permanence of the status quo ante ¹⁷ In other sources the name is אבטולמוס (Ptolemaios). ¹⁸ Since the eruv ¹²⁴ The two cases cannot be compared. The rules of impurity are biblical even if they are extended to cover cases of only rabbinic impurity. The rules of eruv ¹²⁵ He holds the opposite view. The Mishnah Miqwaot ¹²⁶ A generally recognized principle, cf. Ketubot ¹²⁷ Babli 17b. This proves at least that leaving one’s Sabbath domain is a biblical violation. ¹²⁸ A Sabbath violation of one of the 39 forbidden categories of work is punishable by stoning if there are witnesses or divine extirpation otherwise. We do not find flogging as punishment for any Sabbath violation. ¹²⁹ Ex ¹³⁰ Ex ¹³¹ It is unresolved whether leaving one’s domain on the Sabbath is a transgression punishable in court. But the institution of eruv ¹³² In the interpretation of biblical prohibitions, matters of doubt are treated differently when a person is involved who can be interrogated about the situation. Then the rules of resolution of doubts can be invoked only after the facts have been investigated. But if the person involved is deaf mute and unable to communicate by sign language the rules are applied immediately. ¹³³ The preceding makes sense if the eruv ¹³⁴ This is the text of L which probably is correct. In G: Rav. ¹³⁵ The 2’000 cubits counted from the city walls are in imitation of the suburban space allotted to the levitic cities (Num ¹³⁶ This is the general tradition that the diameter of the encampment of the Israelites as described in Num ###### Jerusalem Talmud Eruvin 3:5:1 [Jerusalem Talmud Eruvin 3:5:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Eruvin/r/3:5:1) **משנה:** מַתְנֶה אָדַם עַל עֵירוּבוֹ וְאוֹמֵר אִם בָּאוּ גוֹיִם מִן הַמִּזְרָח עֵירוּבִי לַמַּעֲרָב. וְאִם בָּאוּ מִן הַמַּעֲרָב עֵירוּבִי לַמִּזְרַח. אִם בָּאוּ מִיכָּן וּמִיכָּן לְמָקוֹם שֶׁאֶרְצֶה אֵלֵךְ. לֹא בָאוּ לֹא מִיכָּן וְלֹא מִיכָּן הֲרֵינִי כִבְנֵי עִירִי. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **MISHNAH:** A person may make his *eruv* conditional and say, if Gentiles come from the East my *eruv* shall be in the West, but if they come from the West my *eruv* shall be in the East, if they come from both sides I shall be able to go where I want, if they come from neither side I shall be like the people of my village¹⁹, deposit each one at an appropriate place and determine on Sabbath morning which one to use. While we do not accept retroactive determinations for biblical commandments, they are acceptable for rabbinic institutions.. footnotes: ¹⁹ He can make two eruve teḥumim ###### Jerusalem Talmud Eruvin 3:5:2 [Jerusalem Talmud Eruvin 3:5:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Eruvin/r/3:5:2) **הלכה:** פיס׳. מַתְנֶה אָדָם עַל עֵירוּבוֹ כול׳. כֵּינִי מַתְנִיתָא. עַל עֵירוּבָיו. אָמַר רִבִּי לָעְזָר. מָאן תַנָּא. אִם בָּאוּ. אִם לֹא בָאוּ. רִבִּי מֵאִיר. הֵיידָן רִבִּי מֵאִיר. חֲבֵרַיָיא אָמְרִין. רִבִּי מֵאִיר דְּקִידּוּשִׁין. דְּתַנֵּי. הָאוֹמֵר לָאִשָׁה. הֲרֵי אַתְּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת לִי עַל מְנָת שֶׁיֵּרְדוּ גְשָׁמִים. יָרְדוּ גְשָׁמִים מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת. וְאִם לָאו אֵינָהּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת. רִבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר. בֵּין יָרְדוּ בֵין לֹא יָרְדוּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת עַד שֶׁיַּכְפִּיל תְּנָאוֹ. הַכֹּל מוֹדִין שֶׁאִם אָמַר לָאִשָׁה הֲרֵי אַתְּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת לִי לְאַחַר שֶׁיֵּרְדוּ גְשָׁמִים. יָרְדוּ גְשָׁמִים מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת. וְאִם לָאו אֵינָהּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת. בְּרַם כְּרַבָּנִן בֵּין שׁיָּרְדוּ בֵין שֶׁלֹּא יָרְדוּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת. רִבִּי יוֹסֵה אָמַר. רִבִּי מֵאִיר דְּעֵירוּבִין. דְּתַנִּינָן. אִם סָפֵק. רִבִּי מֵאִיר וְרִבִּי יוּדָה אוֹמְרִין. הֲרֵי זֶה חַמָּר גַּמָּל. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמְרִין סְפֵק הָעֵירוּב כָּשֵׁר. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. לֹא אָמַר רִבִּי מֵאִיר אֶלָּא לַחוֹמָרִין. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא. וְיֵאוּת. בְּעֵירוּבוֹ אֵינוֹ. שֶׁלֹּא זָכָה לוֹ עֵירוּבוֹ. לַעֲקוֹר אֶת רַגְלָיו מִבְּנֵי עִירוֹ. וְהָכָא לָרִאשׁוֹן אֵינָהּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת שֶׁלֹּא יָרְדוּ גְשָׁמִים. וְלַשֵּׁינִי אֵינָהּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת שֶׁלֹּא כָפַל הָרִאשׁוֹן אֶת תְּנָייוֹ. רִבִּי חַגַּיי בְעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. הָהֵן אִם לֹא כִּי לֹא חַד הוּא. אָמַר. שַׁנְיָיה הִיא. שֶׁהָיְתָה הָאָרֶץ לִפְנֵיהֶן וְהוּא מְבַקֵּשׁ לְהוֹצִיאָהּ מִיָּדָן. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **HALAKHAH:** ¹³⁷ 3:3, explained there in Notes 116–131. It is clear that the text here is a copy from there since in the text “here” refers to *Qiddušin* and the discussion between R. Ḥaggai and R. Yose at the end of the paragraph has absolutely nothing to do with the Mishnah in *Eruvin* but asks why the conditional distribution of land to the tribes of Gad and Reuben (*Num*. 32:29–30) required a double condition, both positive and negative; this is relevant only for *Qiddušin*. Similarly the next paragraph has no connection with the topics of *Eruvin*. Paragraph. “A person may make his *eruv* conditional,” etc. So is the Mishnah: “A person can impose a condition on his *ˋeruvin*.” Rebbi Eleazar said, who is the Tanna of “if they came”, “if they did not come”? Rebbi Meïr! Which Rebbi Meïr? The colleagues say, Rebbi Meïr of *Qiddušin*. As it was stated: If somebody say to a woman: You are preliminarily married to me on condition that there will be rain. If rain fell, she is preliminarily married, otherwise she is not preliminarily married. Rebbi Meïr says, she is preliminarily married whether or not rain fell unless he doubled his condition. Everybody agrees that if he said, after rainfall, if it rained she is preliminarily married, otherwise she is not preliminarily married. (But following the rabbis she is preliminarily married whether rain fell or not.)¹. Rebbi Yose said, it follows Rebbi Meïr in *Eruvin*, as we have stated there: “If it is a matter of uncertainty„ Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Jehudah say, he is a donkey driver-camel driver.” Rebbi Yose said, Rebbi Meïr said this only as a restriction. Rebbi Mana said, that is correct. He cannot acquire his ˋ*eruv* since he is not able to enjoy it. [Why not] like the people of his place? If he had decided to leave his place. And here, she is not preliminarily married to the first, since no rain came. She is not preliminarily married to the second, since the first did not double his condition. Rebbi Ḥaggai asked before Rebbi Yose: Is this “if” not a reaction? He answered, there is a difference since the land was in their hand and he wanted to take it away from them. footnotes: ¹³⁷ This paragraph and the next are from Qiddušin ¹ To be deleted with G and Qiddušin ###### Jerusalem Talmud Eruvin 3:5:3 [Jerusalem Talmud Eruvin 3:5:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Eruvin/r/3:5:3) רִבִּי יוּדָה בֶּן שָׁלוֹם רִבִּי יוּדָה בֶּן פָּזִי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. יָרְדוּ לְסִימְפּוֹן בְּשִׁיטַּת רִבִּי מֵאִיר דְּקִידּוּשִׁין. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה רִבִּי חִינְנָא חֲבֵרֵהּ דְּרַבָּנִן בָּעֵי. וְלָמָּה כְרִבִּי מֵאִיר. וַאֲפִילוּ כְרַבָּנִן. לֵית כֵּן. אָמַר רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. סֶדֶר סִימְפּוֹן כָּךְ הוּא. אֲנָא פְלוֹנִי בַּר פְּלוֹנִי מְקַדֵּשׁ אוֹתָךְ. אַתְּ פְּלוֹנִית בַּת פַּלָּן עַל מְנָת מִיתֵּן לִיךְ מִקְּמַת פַּלָּן וּמִיכְנְסִינִיךְ בְּיוֹם פְּלוֹנִי. אִין אֲתַא יוֹם פַּלָּן וְלָא כְנַסְתִּיךְ. לָא יְהַוֵּי לִי עָלַיִיךְ כְּלוּם. וְיֵימַר. עַל מְנָת. שֶׁלֹּא יַכְפִּיל תְּנָייוֹ. אִילּוּ לֹא כָפַל תְּנָייוֹ מִי עֲקַר קִידּוּשָׁיו. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. בְּכָל אֲתַר אִית לֵיהּ לְרִבִּי מֵאִיר. מִמַּשְׁמַע לָאו אַתְּ שׁוֹמֵעַ הֵין. וְהָכָא לֵית לֵיהּ. אָמַר רִבִּי מַתַּנְיָיה. עַל שֵׁם חוֹמֶר הוּא בָעֲרָיוֹת. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** ¹³⁹ 3:3, Notes 133–136. Rebbi Jehudah ben Shalom, Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazy in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan. They formulated the *symphon*¹ 3:2, Note 69 for details and legal standing of this marriage contract. according to Rebbi Meïr in *Qiddušin*. Rebbi Jeremiah: Rebbi Ḥananiah, the colleague of the rabbis, asked: Why does it have to follow Rebbi Meïr but not also the rabbis? Did not Rebbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The following is the contract text: “I, X son of Y, contract a preliminary marriage with you, Z, daughter of U, on condition that I shall give you property A and definitively marry you by day B. If that day should pass without me having taken you in, I shall have no claim on you.” Why can he not say “on condition” but not double his stipulation? If he did not double his stipulation, could this eliminate the preliminary marriage? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, everywhere Rebbi Meïr holds that from “no” you infer “yes”, except here? Rebbi Mattaniah said, one is more restrictive in matters of incest and adultery. footnotes: ¹³⁹ Qiddušin ¹ Greek συμφώνημα, -ατος, τό, “agreement”; cf. Qiddušin ###### Jerusalem Talmud Eruvin 3:5:4 [Jerusalem Talmud Eruvin 3:5:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Eruvin/r/3:5:4) לֹא הִתְנָה. נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא. הֲרֵי שֶׁעִירֵב בֵּין שְׁנֵי תְחוּמִין. מְהַלֵּךְ בַּדָּרוֹם כְּעֵירוּבוֹ בַצָּפוֹן. בַּצָּפוֹן כְּעֵירוּבוֹ בַדָּרוֹם. מִיצֵּע אֶת הַתְּחוּם אַל יָזוֹז מִמְּקוֹמוֹ. בְּהֵמָה שֶׁלְשְׁנֵי שׁוּתָפִין. עִירֵב זֶה בַצָּפוֹן וָזֶה בַדָּרוֹם. מְהַלֶּכֶת בַּדָּרוֹם כְּעֵירוּבוֹ שֶׁלָּזֶה בַצָּפוֹן. בַּצָּפוֹן כְעֵירוּבוֹ שֶׁלָּזֶה בַדָּרוֹם. מִיצַּעת אֶת הַתְּחוּם אַל תָזוֹז מִמְּקוֹמָהּ. שְׁחָטוּהָ. רַב אָמַר. אֵיבָרִים יוֹנְקִין זֶה מִזֶּה. עוּלָּא בַּר יִשְׁמָעֵאל אָמַר. אֵין אֵיבָרִים יוֹנְקִין זֶה מִזֶּה. מוֹדֶה רַב בְּחָבִית שֶׁהוּא חֶלְקוֹ מִשָּׁעָה הָרִאשׁוֹנָה. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** If he did not stipulate? Let us hear from the following¹⁴⁰ 37b. Somebody made two different *eruvim* for the same Sabbath or holiday thinking that he would be able to use both of them.: “If somebody made *eruvim* for two domains he can go to the South according to his *eruv* in the North, to the North according to his *eruv* in the South. If he split the domain¹⁴¹ he may not move from his place.” An animal belonging to two partners one of which made an *eruv* in the North and the other in the South. It may walk to the South according to the *eruv* of the one in the North and to the North according to the *eruv* of the one in the South. If they split the domain it may not move from its place. If they slaughtered it¹⁴² 37b.. Rav said, limbs suck from one another. Ulla bar Ismael said, limbs do not suck from one another¹⁴³. Rav agrees about an amphora that it was his part from before¹⁴⁴ is a rabbinic institution one accepts that a later distribution retroactively determines property rights. By biblical standards retroactivity is excluded.. footnotes: ¹⁴⁰ Tosephta 3:4; Babli 50b; Beṣah ¹⁴¹ If the two domains intersect only at one point he cannot move from that point. ¹⁴² On a holiday when slaughter is permitted. Babli Beṣah ¹⁴³ According to Rav the partners can move the parts only in the common domain; according to Ulla bar Ismael each owner may move his part anywhere in his domain. ¹⁴⁴ Since it was determined that eruv ###### Jerusalem Talmud Eruvin 3:5:5 [Jerusalem Talmud Eruvin 3:5:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Eruvin/r/3:5:5) כֵּינִי מַתְנִיתָא. בָּאוּ גוֹיִם מִיכָּן וּמִיכָּן. לֹא בָאוּ גוֹיִם לֹא מִיכָּן וְלֹא מִיכָּן. בָּאוּ גוֹיִם מִן הַמִּזְרָח עֵירוּבִי לַמַּעֲרָב. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי. בַּמִּזְרָח. מָאן דָּמַר. בַּמִּזְרָח. בְּאִילֵּין טַקְסִיווֹטֵי. מָאן דָּמַר. בַּמַּעֲרָב. בְּאֵילֵּין רוֹמָאֵי. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** So is the Mishnah: If Gentiles come from both sides, if Gentiles do not come from either side¹⁴⁵. “If Gentiles come from the East my *eruv* shall be in the West.” Some Tannaim state, to the East¹⁴⁶. He who says to the East, about these officers¹⁴⁸”, whom it is important to humor., he who says to the West, about these Romans¹⁴⁹. footnotes: ¹⁴⁵ For לא באו one has to read אם לא באו. ¹⁴⁶ If the Gentiles come to the East, his eruv shall be to the East. Why should he want to go to the East? ¹⁴⁸ Greek ταξεώτης, -ου ὁ, “officer of a magistrate, member of militia palatina ¹⁴⁹ Common soldiers, notoriously badly disciplined in the later Empire. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Eruvin 3:6:1 [Jerusalem Talmud Eruvin 3:6:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Eruvin/r/3:6:1) **משנה:** אִם בָּא חָכָם מִן הַמִּזְרָח עֵירוּבִי לַמִּזְרָח בָּא מִן הַמַּעֲרָב עֵירוּבִי לַמַּעֲרָב בָּא מִיכָּן וּמִיכָּן לִמְקוֹם שֶׁאֶרְצֶה אֵלֵךְ לֹא בָא לֹא מִיכָּן וְלֹא מִיכָּן הֲרֵינִי כִבְנֵי עִירִי. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר אִם הָיָה אֶחָד מֵהֶן רַבּוֹ יֵלֵךְ אֵצֶל רַבּוֹ. שְׁנֵיהֶן רַבּוֹתָיו לִמְקוֹם שֶׁיִרְצֶה יֵלֵךְ: **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **MISHNAH:** If a Sage comes from the East my *eruv* shall be to the East, if he comes from the West my *eruv* shall be to the West, on both sides I shall be able to go where I want²⁰, if they come from neither side I shall be like the people of my village. Rebbi Jehudah says, if one of them was his teacher he has to go to his teacher²¹ becomes void automatically., if both were his teachers he may go to where he wants. footnotes: ²⁰ He has no preacher at his place; he intends to go to any place where there is instruction. If two preachers come he may choose which lecture to attend. ²¹ Since we presume that his intention is to hear his teacher, the second eruv ###### Jerusalem Talmud Eruvin 3:6:2 [Jerusalem Talmud Eruvin 3:6:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Eruvin/r/3:6:2) **הלכה:** פיס׳. בָּא חָכָם מִן הַמִּזְרָח כול׳. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי. בְּמַעֲרָב. מָאן דָּמַר. בַּמִּזְרָח. בְּאִילֵּין חֲכִימַיָּא. מָאן דָּמַר. בְּמַעֲרָב. בְּרָגִיל. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **HALAKHAH:** Paragraph. “If a Sage comes from the East,” etc. Some Tannaim state, to the West. He who says, in the East, about these Sages. He who says, in the West, about a fundraiser¹⁵⁰ 4 (1933) pp. 378–379.. footnotes: ¹⁵⁰ S. Liebermann, Tarbiz ###### Jerusalem Talmud Eruvin 3:6:3 [Jerusalem Talmud Eruvin 3:6:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Eruvin/r/3:6:3) פיס׳. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר אִם הָיָה אֶחָד מֵהֶן כול׳. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר. [אִם הָיָה אֶחָד מֵהֶם רָגִיל יֵלֵךְ לוֹ אֵצֶל [הָרָ]גִיל שְׁנֵיהֶן רְגִילִין לְמָקוֹם שֶׁיִּרְצֶה יֵלֵךְ]. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** Paragraph. “Rebbi Jehudah says, if one of them was,” etc. Rebbi Jehudah says ¹⁵¹[if one of them was a fundraiser, he should go to the fundraiser; if both of them were fundraisers he may go to the place of his choosing.] footnotes: ¹⁵¹ Added from G; missing in L and the printed editions. It probably was omitted since it flatly contradicts the preceding statement from the discussion of Mishnah 6. But that describes what people do while in Mishnah 7 R. Jehudah prescribes what people should do. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Eruvin 3:7:1 [Jerusalem Talmud Eruvin 3:7:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Eruvin/r/3:7:1) **משנה:** רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר יוֹם טוֹב שֶׁהוּא סָמוּךְ לַשַּׁבָּת בֵּין מִלְּפָנֶיהָ בֵין מִלְּאַחֲרֶיהָ מְעָרֵב אָדָם שְׁנֵי עֵירוּבִין וְאוֹמֵר עֵירוּבִי הָרִאשׁוֹן לַמִּזְרָח וְהַשֵּׁנִי לַמַּעֲרָב. הָרִאשׁוֹן לַמַּעֲרָב וְהַשֵּׁנִי לַמִּזְרָח. עֵירוּבִי הָרִאשׁוֹן וְהַשֵּׁנִי כִּבְנֵי עִירִי הַשֵּׁנִי וְהָרִאשׁוֹן כִּבְנֵי עִירִי. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים מְעָרֵב לְרוּחַ אַחַת אוֹ אֵינוֹ מְעָרֵב כָּל עִיקָּר אוֹ מְעָרֵב לִשְׁנֵי יָמִים אוֹ אֵינוֹ מְעָרֵב כָּל עִיקָּר. כֵּיצַד יַעֲשֶׂה מוֹלִיכוֹ בָרִאשׁוֹן וּמַחְשִׁיךְ עָלָיו וְנוֹטְלוֹ וּבָא לוֹ וּבַשֵׁנִי מַחְשִׁיךְ עָלָיו וְאוֹכְלוֹ וּבָא לוֹ וְנִמְצָא מִשְׂתַּכֵּר בַּהֲלִיכָתוֹ וּמִשְׂתַּכֵּר בְּעֵירוּבוֹ. נֶאֱכַל בָּרִאשׁוֹן עֵירוּב לָרִאשׁוֹן וְאֵינוֹ עֵירוּב לַשֵּׁנִי. אָמַר לָהֶן רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר מוֹדִין אַתֶּם לִי שֶׁהֵן שְׁתֵּי קְדוּשּׁוֹת: **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **MISHNAH:** Rebbi Eliezer says, if a holiday is next to a Sabbath either before or after, a person may make two *eruvin* and say: my first *eruv* shall be to the East and the second to the West, the first to the West and the second to the East, my first *eruv* but on the second like the people of my town. My *eruv* for the first [day], but the second like the people of my town; the second [day], but the first like the people of my town.²². R. Eliezer holds that since Sabbath and holiday are distinct entities, one may make different *eruvim* for the two days. The Sages agree but they hold that an *eruv* can be made only in preparation on a working day; therefore a different *eruv* for the second day can never become effective.. But the Sages say, either one makes an *eruv* to one side or one does not make an *eruv* at all; one makes an *eruv* for both days or one does not make an *eruv* at all²². R. Eliezer holds that since Sabbath and holiday are distinct entities, one may make different *eruvim* for the two days. The Sages agree but they hold that an *eruv* can be made only in preparation on a working day; therefore a different *eruv* for the second day can never become effective.. What should he do? He brings it on the first day, stays there when it gets dark, takes it and goes home, On the second day he brings it, stays there when it gets dark, eats it and goes home²³ on Thursday to the place he has selected, waits there for the start of the holiday to enter into force and takes the *eruv* home lest it become lost. On Friday he brings the *eruv* back to the place he chose the day before, waits for the start of the Sabbath but then, since he is forbidden to carry on the Sabbath, eats the *eruv* before returning to his house.. It turns out that he profits from his going and his *eruv*. If it is eaten on the first day, it is an *eruv* for the first but is not an *eruv* for the second. Rebbi Eliezer told them, you agree with me that they are two kinds if sanctities²⁴ must exist at the beginning of the Sabbath they imply that the Sabbath is not the extension of the holiday.. footnotes: ²² Since on a holiday one may carry, by necessity this refers to eruv teḥumim ²² Since on a holiday one may carry, by necessity this refers to eruv teḥumim ²³ This works only if Friday is a holiday. He brings the eruv ²⁴ Since the Sages agree that the eruv ###### Jerusalem Talmud Eruvin 3:7:2 [Jerusalem Talmud Eruvin 3:7:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Eruvin/r/3:7:2) **הלכה:** רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר כול׳. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים מְעָרֵב לְרוּחַ אַחַת. כֵּינִי מַתְנִיתָא. אוֹ מְעָרֵב לְרוּחַ אַחַת לִשְׁנֵי יָמִים. אוֹ אֵינוֹ מְעָרֵב כָּל עִיקָּר. מוֹדֶה רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְעָרֵב חֲצִי יוֹם בַּדָּרוֹם וַחֲצִי יוֹם בַּצָּפוֹן. חֲצִי יוֹם בַּדָּרוֹם וַחֲצִי יוֹם בַּצָּפוֹן לִבְנֵי עִירוֹ. אָמְרוּ לוֹ. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁלֹּא חִלַּקְתָּ לָנוּ יוֹם אֶחָד כָּךְ לֹא תַחֲלוֹק לָנוּ שְׁנֵי יָמִים. וְשָׁוִוין שֶׁלֹּא יִתְּנֶנּוּ בַסַּל. אָמַר רִבִּי בָּא. שֶׁמָּא יִשְׁכַּח וְיֹאכְלֶנּוּ. נָתַן בַּסַּל. מוֹלִיךְ אֶת הַסַּל לְשָׁם. אָכַל אֶת אֶחָד מֵהֶן מִבְּעוֹד יוֹם הַרֵי זֶה חַמָּר גַּמָּל. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **HALAKHAH:** “Rebbi Eliezer says,” etc. “But the Sages say, either one makes an *eruv* to one side.” So is the Mishnah: Either one makes an *eruv* to one side for two days or one does not make an *eruv* at all¹⁵². Rebbi Eliezer agrees that one cannot make an *eruv* for half a day in the South and one for half a day in the North, for half a day in the South and one for half a day (in the North)¹⁵³ for the people of his place. They told him, just as you did not split the day for us, so do not split two days for us¹⁵⁴ to become effective on the Sabbath one would have to invalidate the *eruv* for the holiday some time before sundown.. They agree that he should not put them¹⁵⁵ for the two days. in a basket. Rebbi Abba said, that he should not forget and eat it. If he did put it into a basket, he should bring the basket there. If he eats one of them he is a donkey driver-camel driver¹⁵⁶ was eaten both are potentially valid or invalid both days.. footnotes: ¹⁵² The words “in one direction” are missing in Mishnah 9. ¹⁵³ The words in parentheses are clearly out of place but they are also found in G. ¹⁵⁴ Cf. Note 22. Even though the sanctity of the Sabbath is different in kind from that of the holiday, for the eruv ¹⁵⁵ The eruvim ¹⁵⁶ If it cannot be determined which day’s eruv ###### Jerusalem Talmud Eruvin 3:7:3 [Jerusalem Talmud Eruvin 3:7:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Eruvin/r/3:7:3) תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן. לָגִין שֶׁהוּא טְבוּל יוֹם מִן הֶחָבִית מַעֲשֵׂר טוֹבֵל. אִם אָמַר. הֲרֵי זֶה תְּרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר מִשֶּׁתֶּחְשַׁךְ. הֲרֵי זוֹ תְּרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר. אִם אָמַר. הֲרֵי זֶה עֵרוּב. לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם. רִבִּי יוֹנָה אָמַר. רִבִּי חָמָא בַּר עֲקִיבָה מַקְשֵׁי. מַתְנִיתָה דְלֹא כְרִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר. דְּרִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אָמַר. אֵין מְעָרְבִין לָאָדָם מִשֶּׁתֶּחְשַׁךְ. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי זְעִירָא. דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל הִיא תַמָּן. בְּרַם הָכָא מִבַּחוֹל הוּא קָנָה לוֹ שְׁבִיתָה לִשְׁנֵי יָמִים. רִבִּי חַגַּיי בָעֵי. הָיָה עוֹמֵד בַּחֲמִישִּׁי בַשַּׁבָּת וְאָמַר. תִּקָּנֶה לִי שְׁבִיתָה בַשַּׁבָּת. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר קָנָה. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרַב לֹא קָנָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. וְלָמָּה אֵין מְעָרְבִין לָאָדָם מִיּוֹם טוֹב לַשַּׁבָּת. שֶׁכֵּן מְעָרְבִין לָאָדָם מֵעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת לַשַּׁבָּת. בְּרַם הָכָא הוֹאִיל וְהוּא רָאוּי לְעָרֵב מֵעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת לַשַּׁבָּת. מְעָרֵב אֲפִילוּ בַּחֲמִישִּׁי בַשַּׁבָּת. אָמַר לָהֶן רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר. אֵי אַתֶּם מוֹדִין לִי. שֶׁאִם עִירֵב בַּכִּכָּר בָּרִאשׁוֹן שֶׁהוּא מְעָרֵב בַּכִּכָּר בַּשֵׁינִי. שֶׁאִם אֲכָלוֹ בָּרִאשׁוֹן שֶׁהוּא עֵירוּב לָרִאשׁוֹן וְאֵינוֹ עֵירוּב לַשֵּׁינִי. הֲוֵוי שְׁתֵּי קְדוּשּׁוֹת הֵן. וְאִינּוּן מְתִיבִין לֵיהּ. אֵין אַתָּה מוֹדֶה לָנוּ שֶׁאֵין מְעָרְבִין לָאָדָם כַּתְּחִילָּה בְּיוֹם טוֹב. הֲוֵוי קְדוּשָּׁה אַחַת הִיא. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** There we have stated¹⁵⁷ 2:2.: “A flask¹⁵⁸ which had been immersed on the same day and [they filled it]¹⁵⁹ from an amphora with *ṭevel* tithe, if he said that this shall be heave of the tithe after nightfall then it is heave of the tithe¹⁶⁰ removes the impurity (*Lev*. 22:6) but only the following sundown creates purity for *sancta*(*Lev*. 22:7). Tithe given to the Levite is forbidden for everybody as *ṭevel* before heave of the tithe has been separated; the heave is a *sanctum* for the Cohen, the remainder becomes purely profane in the Levite’s hand. The *ṭevel* filled into the flask is not a sanctum; since the flask is not impure it does not change the status of the fluid which it contains. After sundown it becomes pure for *sancta*; if at the same point in time the contents become heave, the heave is pure.. If he said this is *eruv*, he did not say anything.¹⁶¹ must be valid before sundown but at that time the contents of the flask still were *ṭevel* and forbidden as food even to the Cohen, the *eruv* is invalid.” Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Ḥama bar (Aqiba) [Uqba]¹⁶² asked, is this Mishnah not following Rebbi Eliezer, since Rebbi Eliezer said, one does not make an *eruv* for a person after nightfall¹⁶³ is invalid.? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: There it is everybody’s opinion. But here he acquires a place for Sabbath rest for two days while it still is a working day¹⁶⁴; the Mishnah in *Ṭevul Yom* has no relevance for the disagreement here.. Rebbi Ḥaggai asked, if it was Thursday and he said, this should acquire for me a place for Sabbath rest, in Rebbi Eliezer’s opinion he acquired, in (Rav’s) [the rabbis’]¹⁶² opinion did he not acquire¹⁶⁵ for the Sabbath if Friday is a holiday, he certainly must permit making on Thursday an *eruv* for a regular Sabbath. But the rabbis’ opinion in this matter cannot be determined from the Mishnah.? Rebbi Yose said, why can a person not make an *eruv* from holiday to Sabbath? Because a person makes an *eruv* from Sabbath eve to the Sabbath¹⁶⁶ an *eruv* from Sabbath eve (which is a holiday) to the Sabbath. If one refrains from emending the text one has to read the sentence as a rhetorical question: Because could a person make an *eruv* from Sabbath eve (which is a holiday) to the Sabbath?. But here, since he can make an *eruv* from Sabbath eve to the Sabbath, he may make an *eruv* even from Thursday to the Sabbath¹⁶⁷. ¹⁶⁸“Rebbi Eliezer said to them, do you not agree with me that if he used a loaf to make an *eruv* for the first day, that he may use a loaf to make an *eruv* for the second day, that if he ate it on the first day it is an *eruv* for the first day but is not an *eruv* for the second? Therefore these are two sanctities. They answered him, do you not agree with us that a person does not make a new *eruv* on a holiday? Therefore it is one sanctity.” footnotes: ¹⁵⁷ Mishnah Ṭevul Yom ¹⁵⁸ Greek λάγυνος, ὁ. ¹⁵⁹ Added from G and the Mishnah text. ¹⁶⁰ Purification from impurity is in two steps. Immersion in a miqweh ¹⁶¹ Since an eruv ¹⁶² The correct reading is from [G], the incorrect one from (L). ¹⁶³ Since this is the reason while the eruv ¹⁶⁴ The rabbis also hold that on the day itself one cannot make an eruv ¹⁶² The correct reading is from [G], the incorrect one from (L). ¹⁶⁵ Since R. Eliezer permits to make on Thursday a separate eruv ¹⁶⁶ Rashba (col. 239) and Meïri (col. 133b) emend the text to read: Because a person cannot make ¹⁶⁷ If there is no holiday intervening. ¹⁶⁸ A slightly different text Tosephta 4:1; still differently Babli 39a. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Eruvin 3:8:1 [Jerusalem Talmud Eruvin 3:8:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Eruvin/r/3:8:1) **משנה:** רִבִּי יוּדָה אוֹמֵר רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה שֶׁהָיָה יָרֵא שֶׁמָּא תִתְעַבֵּר מְעָרֵב אָדָם שְׁנֵי עֵירוּבִין וְאוֹמֵר עֵירוּבִי הָרִאשׁוֹן לַמִּזְרָח וְהַשֵּׁנִי לַמַּעֲרָב הָרִאשׁוֹן לַמַּעֲרָב וְהַשֵּׁנִי לַמִּזְרָח עֵירוּבִי הָרִאשׁוֹן וְהַשֵּׁנִי כִּבְנֵי עִירִי הַשֵּׁנִי וְהָרִאשׁוֹן כִּבְנֵי עִירִי וְלֹא הוֹדוּ לוֹ חֲכָמִים: **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **MISHNAH:** Rebbi Jehudah said, if a person was afraid that the New Year’s Day might be complemented²⁵. The Sages hold that the two days are legally one long holiday., he makes two *eruvin* and says, my first *eruv* should be to the East and the second to the West, the first to the West and the second to the East, my *eruv* for the first day and on the second like the people of my village, for the second day but the first day like the people of my village. But the Sages did not agree with him. footnotes: ²⁵ This refers to the times when the calendar was not computed but the day of the New Moon was determined by observation. Outside the seat of the Synhedrion the day of the New Moon of Tishre, which is New Year’s Day in the Baylonian calendar, had to be observed for two days since it could be either the 30th or the 31st of Elul. This is the only holiday falling on a New Moon. While the holiday lasts two days, it is clear that this is not a question of two distinct sanctities but in fact one of the days is really a weekday, the other a holiday, only it is not known which is which. Rebbi Jehudah, the student of R. Eliezer’s student, follows R. Eliezer and permits two different eruvin ###### Jerusalem Talmud Eruvin 3:8:2 [Jerusalem Talmud Eruvin 3:8:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Eruvin/r/3:8:2) **הלכה:** פיס׳. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה שֶׁהָיָה יָרֵא שֶׁמָּא תִתְעַבֵּר כול׳. דְּאִיתְפַּלְּגוֹן. שְׁיֵרֵי פְתִילָה שְׁיֵרֵי מְדוּרָה שְׁיֵרֵי שֶׁמֶן שֶׁכָּבוּ בַשַּׁבָּת מָהוּ לְהַדְלִיקָם בְּיוֹם טוֹב. רַב וְרִבִּי חֲנִינָה תְּרֵיהוֹן אָמְרִין. אָסוּר. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. מוּתָּר. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוּדָן. מְכַפְּלָה פְתִילָה גַּבֵּי בֵיצָה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ. מִן מַה דָנָן חַמְיָין רַבָּנִן מְדַמֵּיי לָהּ. הָדָא אָמְרָה. הִיא הָדָא הִיא הָדָא. מִשּׁוּם אַרְבָּעָה זְקֵנִים אָמְרוּ. הַנֶּאֱכַל עֵירוּבוֹ בָּרִאשׁוֹן הֲרֵי זֶה כִבְנֵי עִירוֹ כַשֵּׁינִי. רִבִּי חוּנָה בְשֵׁם רַב. הֲלָכָה כְאַרְבָּעָה זְקֵינִים. רַב חַסְדַּאי בְעָא. מִחְלְפָה שִׁיטָּתֵיהּ דְּרַב. תַּמָּן אִיעֲבֲד לָהּ שְׁתֵּי קְדוּשּׁוֹת. וָכָא אִיעֲבֲד לָהּ קְדוּשָּׁה אַחַת. דְּאִיתְפַּלְּגוֹן. שְׁיֵרֵי פְתִילָה שְׁיֵרֵי מְדוּרָה שְׁיֵרֵי שֶׁמֶן שֶׁכָּבוּ בַשַּׁבָּת. מָהוּ לְהַדְלִיקָם בְּיוֹם טוֹב. רַב וְרִבִּי חֲנִינָה תְּרֵיהוֹן אָמְרִין. אָסוּר. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. מוּתָּר. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוּדָן. מְכַפְּלָה פְתִילָה גַּבֵּי בֵיצָה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ. מִן מַה דָנָן חַמֵיי רַבָּנִין מְדַמֵּיי לָהּ. הָדָא אָמְרָה. אִי אִידָא אִי אִידָא. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **HALAKHAH:** Paragraph. “Rebbi Jehudah said, if a person was afraid that the New Year’s Day might be complemented²⁵. The Sages hold that the two days are legally one long holiday.,” etc. ¹⁶⁹ 9:1 (Notes 24–30,7) and *Beṣah* 1:1 (60a l. 62,י). The latter text is the original. The introductory sentence, “because they disagreed” makes no sense here but is intelligible in the two parallel sources. While the starting quote is from Mishnah 10, the entire discussion refers to Mishnah 9, a Sabbath preceded or followed by a holiday which is not New Year’s Day. Because they disagreed: May the remainders of a wick, a fire, or oil that burned out on the Sabbath be lit on the holiday¹⁷⁰. The rule that (*Ex*. 16:5) *they have to prepare what they are* G*oin* G*to use* is given for the Sabbath but is transferred to holidays. Then since oil or wood were not usable a minute before the start of the holiday they cannot become usable on the holiday. If the rule is not transferred, the fuel becomes permitted at the end of the Sabbath.? Rav and Rebbi Ḥanina both say it is forbidden, but Rebbi Joḥanan says, it is permitted. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yudan, is it the reverse regarding an egg¹⁷¹ 1:1: “An egg laid on the holiday, the House of Shammai say, may be eaten; the House of Hillel say, it may not be eaten.” According to the Yerushalmi, in the opinion of the House of Shammai the egg is prepared since the hen itself is potential food and an egg inside a slaughtered hen is permitted food. According to the House of Hillel, the egg becomes something new by being laid. The new egg was not in existence before the holiday.? He said to him, since the rabbis compare it, it means that the two cases are identical¹⁷² 1:3: “An egg laid on the Sabbath may be eaten on the holiday. R. Jehudah said in the name of R. Eliezer, the dispute is the same.”. They said in the name of four Elders¹⁷³: If somebody’s *eruv* was eaten on the first [day] he is like the people of his town on the second [day]. Rav Ḥuna said in the name of Rav: Practice follows the four Elders¹⁷⁴, “here” is *Beṣah*, about the leftover fuel. If the status regarding the *eruv* can change from day to day, it is difficult to see why using the fuel should be forbidden. The Babli notes that Rav Ḥisda asked his question only after Rav Ḥuna’s death.. Rav Ḥisda asked: the argument of Rav seems to be inverted. There, he makes it two sanctities, but here he makes it one sanctity. Because they disagreed: May the remainders of a wick, a fire, or oil that burned out on the Sabbath be lit on the holiday? Rav and Rebbi Ḥanina both say it is forbidden, but Rebbi Joḥanan says, it is permitted. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yudan, is it the reverse regarding an egg? He said to him, since the rabbis compare it, it means that the two cases are identical¹⁷⁶. footnotes: ²⁵ This refers to the times when the calendar was not computed but the day of the New Moon was determined by observation. Outside the seat of the Synhedrion the day of the New Moon of Tishre, which is New Year’s Day in the Baylonian calendar, had to be observed for two days since it could be either the 30th or the 31st of Elul. This is the only holiday falling on a New Moon. While the holiday lasts two days, it is clear that this is not a question of two distinct sanctities but in fact one of the days is really a weekday, the other a holiday, only it is not known which is which. Rebbi Jehudah, the student of R. Eliezer’s student, follows R. Eliezer and permits two different eruvin ¹⁶⁹ This paragraph also is in Ševiˋit ¹⁷⁰ If the holiday falls on a Sunday, since it is forbidden to light fire on the Sabbath, the unburned oil or wood that was burning at the onset of the Sabbath, but later burned out or was extinguished by the wind are no longer usable on the Sabbath, they become muqṣeh ¹⁷¹ Mishnah Beṣah ¹⁷² At least for the House of Hillel. Tosephta Yom Tov ¹⁷³ According to the Babli 38b the Elders are Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, R. Ismael ben R. Joḥanan ben Beroqa, R. Eleazar ben R. Simeon, and R. Yose ben R. Jehudah. In Tosephta 4:2 the statement is R. Meïr’s. ¹⁷⁴ “There” is Eruvin ¹⁷⁶ For R. Aḥa it is a tradition which he learned from his teacher, for R. Yose it is a logical inference. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Eruvin 3:8:3 [Jerusalem Talmud Eruvin 3:8:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Eruvin/r/3:8:3) רִבִּי אָחָא אָמַר לָהּ מִן אוּלְפָּן. רִבִּי יוּסֵי אָמַר לָהּ מִן דֵּיעָה. בְּאַרְבָּעָה זְקֵנִים כְּרִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. רִבִּי מֵאִיר וְרִבִּי יוּדָה אֵין הֲלָכָה כְרִבִּי יוּדָה. בְּאַרְבָּעָה זְקֵינִים כְּרִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר. מָה אִין תַּמָּן. שֶׁלֹּא זָכָה עֵירוּבוֹ. לֹא הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר שֶׁיַּעֲקוֹר אֶת רַגְלָיו מִבְּנֵי עִירוֹ. כָּאן. שֶׁזָּכָה לוֹ עֵירוּבוֹ. לֹא כָל שֶׁכֵּן. עִירֵב בַּכִּכָּר בָּרִאשׁוֹן מְעָרֵב בַּכִּכָּר בַּשֵּׁינִי. וּבִלְבַד בְּאוֹתוֹ הַכִּכָּר. עִירֵב בְּרַגְלָיו בָּרִאשׁוֹן מְעָרֵב בְּרַגְלָיו בַּשֵּׁינִי. עִירֵב בְּרַגְלָיו מְעָרֵב בַּכִּכָּר. בַּכִּכָּר לֹא יְעָרֵב בְּרַגְלָיו. הֵיךְ מַה דְאַתְּ אָמַר תַּמָּן. בְּרַגְלָיו לֹא יְעָרֵב בַּכִּכָּר. וְדִכְוָתָהּ. (בְּרַגְלָיו) בַּכִּכָּר לֹא יְעָרֵב בְּרַגְלָיו. לְהָקֵל לְעָנִי שֶׁאֵין לוֹ כִכָּר. הֵיךְ מַה דְאַתְּ אָמַר תַּמָּן. בְּרַגְלָיו לֹא יְעָרֵב בַּכִּכָּר. וְדִכְוָותָהּ. בַּכִּכָּר לֹא יְעָרֵב בְּרַגְלָיו. לְהָקֵל לְעָשִׁיר שֶׁלֹּא יֵצֵא וִיעָרֵב בְּרַגְלָיו. הֵיךְ מַה דְאַתְּ אָמַר תַּמָּן. בְּרַגְלָיו לֹא יְעָרֵב בַּכִּכָּר. וְדִכְוָותָהּ. בַּכִּכָּר לֹא יְעָרֵב (בַּכִּכָּר). רִבִּי אָבוּן בְּשֵׁם רַבָּנִין דְתַמָּן. עָשׂוּ אוֹתוֹ כְּהוֹלֵךְ לְעִירוֹ. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** Rebbi Aḥa said it from study, Rebbi Yose said it from reflection¹⁷⁶; the four Elders concur with Rebbi Eliezer¹⁷⁷. The Elders hold that if the *eruv* is nonexistent at the start of the second day, the person is no longer bound by it and therefore moves in a different domain on the second day.. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: between Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Jehudah, does practice not follow Rebbi Jehudah¹⁷⁸ 3:1 (Note 26).? The four Elders concur with Rebbi Eliezer! Since there where his *eruv* did not enter in force did I not say that he removed his feet from the inhabitants of his town, here where his *eruv* did enter in force not so much more¹⁷⁹ without anything, just by being at the Sabbath boundary at the start of the Sabbath, as if he were a traveller arriving at that spot which becomes his Sabbath center. R. Jehudah permits the same for everybody. Mishnah 11 is about a person sent to make an *eruv* for an entire village when on the way he was persuaded by somebody not to complete his errand where R. Jehudah, whom practice follows, holds consistently with his opinion in Mishnah 10 that he can walk as if he made the *eruv* since near sundown he was on his way. In case of Mishnah 4:11 the fact that he started going away lets him move his Sabbath domain without an *eruv*, in the case of the four elders where there was a valid *eruv* for the first day it is difficult to understand why the *eruv* should have disappeared for the second day unless one follows R. Eliezer whom practice is not supposed to follow.? If he made an *eruv* with a loaf on the first [day], he makes the *eruv* with a loaf on the second, but it must be the same loaf. If he made an *eruv* with his feet on the first [day], he makes the *eruv* with his feet on the second¹⁸⁰ on a Sabbath or holiday; therefore either one uses the loaf which had been used for the first day or one makes the *eruv* by walking following Mishnah 4:10.. If he made an *eruv* with his feet, may he make an *eruv* with a loaf, with a loaf may he not make an *eruv* with his feet? Since you are saying there, with his feet he may not make an *eruv* with a loaf, then with (his feet) [with a loaf]¹⁸¹ may he not make the *eruv* with his feet¹⁸² on a Sabbath or holiday; then maybe one may not go to validate the *eruv* for the second day since it will look as if one made it new for that day.? To make it easy for the poor person who has no loaf. Since you are saying there, with his feet he may not make an *eruv* with a loaf, then with with a loaf may he not make the *eruv* with his feet? To make it easy for the rich person that he does not have to go and make the *eruv* with his feet¹⁸³ for the second day were different from that for the first and should be forbidden.. Since you are saying there, with his feet he may not make an *eruv* with a loaf, then with a loaf may he not make the *eruv* with a loaf? Rebbi Abun in the name of the rabbis there, they made him as if going to his town¹⁸⁴ but since the loaf was at its place at sundown the first day he only goes home to where his Sabbath or holiday center was at the beginning of the first day.. footnotes: ¹⁷⁶ For R. Aḥa it is a tradition which he learned from his teacher, for R. Yose it is a logical inference. ¹⁷⁷ R. Eliezer holds that on two consecutive days, one a Sabbath and one a holiday, a person may make two different eruvim ¹⁷⁸ A generally recognized principle, Babli 46b, Yerushalmi Terumot ¹⁷⁹ The argument here and in the following refers to the disagreements between R. Meïr and R. Jehudah in Mishnaiot 4:10–11. In Mishnah 10 R. Meïr permits only a poor person to make an eruv ¹⁸⁰ Babli 39a in the name of Samuel. As the Babli explains, one may not start a new eruv ¹⁸¹ The scribe wrote “his feet”, the corrector wrongly corrected to “a loaf”. ¹⁸² If one may not start a new eruv ¹⁸³ Using the loaf first and then walking there also looks as if the eruv ¹⁸⁴ Using the loaf twice will not look like making two eruvim ###### Jerusalem Talmud Eruvin 3:9:1 [Jerusalem Talmud Eruvin 3:9:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Eruvin/r/3:9:1) **משנה:** וְעוֹד אָמַר רִבִּי יְהוּדָה מַתְנֶה אָדָם עַל הַכַּלְכָּלָה בְּיוֹם טוֹב הָרִאשׁוֹן וְאוֹכְלָהּ בַּשֵּׁנִי וְכֵן בֵּיצָּה שֶׁנּוֹלְדָה בָרִאשׁוֹן תֵּיאָכֵל בַּשֵּׁנִי וְלֹא הוֹדוּ לוֹ חֲכָמִים: **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **MISHNAH:** In addition, Rebbi Jehudah says that a person may stipulate about a basket on the first day²⁶ may not be eaten; heave and tithes may not be taken on a holiday. R. Jehudah permits to designate heave and tithes on the first day after a declaration that heave and tithe are designated if and only if the day was a weekday. If the same declaration is repeated on the second day, exactly one of them is valid and the remainder of the produce in the basket may be consumed. and eat from it on the second; similarly an egg which was laid on the first may be eaten on the second²⁷; but the Sages did not agree with him²⁸. footnotes: ²⁶ Still about New Year’s day. Ṭevel ²⁷ Since the egg either was laid or consumed on a weekday. ²⁸ Since the two days are legally one long holiday and the egg was not food at the start of the holiday. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Eruvin 3:9:2 [Jerusalem Talmud Eruvin 3:9:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Eruvin/r/3:9:2) **הלכה:** וְאוֹמֵר. אִם יוֹם טוֹב הַיּוֹם. יִבְטְלוּ דְבָרַיי וְיִקְרָא שֵׁם לְמַעְשְׂרוֹתָיו וְאֵינוֹ אוֹכְלָן. וּבַשֵּׁינִי קוֹרֵא שֵׁם לְמַעְשְׂרוֹתָיו וְאוֹכְלָן. מִחְלְפָה שִׁיטָּתֵיהּ דְּרַב. תַּמָּן אִיעֲבֲד לָהּ קְדוּשָּׁה אַחַת. וָכָא אִיעֲבֲד לָהּ שְׁתֵּי קְדוּשֻׁת. תַּמָּן קְדוּשָּׁה אַחַת אֲרוכָה הִיא. בְּרַם הָכָא אָחָת קוֹדֶשׁ וְאַחַת חוֹל. מִחְלְפָה שִׁיטָּתֵיהּ דְּרַבָּנִן. תַּמָּן עָבְדִין לָהּ שְׁתֵּי קְדוּשּׁוֹת. וָכָא אִינּוּן עָבְדִין לָיהּ קְדוּשָּׁה אַחַת. תַּמָּן יוֹם טוֹב אֶצֶל שַׁבָּת כְּחוֹל אֶצֶל שַׁבָּת. בְּרַם הָכָא שְׁנֵיהֶן שָׁוִין. מוֹדִין חֲכָמִים לְרִבִּי יוּדָה בִּשְׁנֵי יָמִים טוֹבִים שֶׁלְרֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה שֶׁהֵן מִתַּקָּנַת נְבִיאִים הָרִאשׁוֹנִים. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **HALAKHAH:** “And he says if today is holiday my words should be void but he gives a name to his tithes but does not eat from it. On the second [day] he gives a name to his tithes and eats from it.¹⁸⁵ produce. He cannot eat it on the first day, but if on both days he designates the same produce as heave and tithe, one of the designations will have been made on a non-holiday (presuming that none of the two is a Sabbath) and the remainder may be consumed on the second day.” Rav’s¹⁸⁶ argument seems inverted. There he treats it as one sanctity but here he treats it as two sanctities. There it is one long sanctity but here one is holy, the other profane¹⁸⁷ is either valid for both or not valid at all. But the two days of the New Year he treats as different sanctities.. The rabbis’ argument seems inverted. There they treat it as two sanctities, but here they make it one sanctity. There a holiday next to a Sabbath is like weekday next to Sabbath but here both are equal¹⁸⁸. The Sages agree with Rebbi Jehudah about the two days of the New Year which are an institution of the early prophets¹⁸⁹ footnotes: ¹⁸⁵ Tosephta 4:3, attributed to R. Jehudah. This refers to Mishnah 11, about a person who on the New Year wants to eat ṭevel ¹⁸⁶ This must read “R. Jehudah’s” even though G agrees with L in reading “Rav’s”. ¹⁸⁷ If either Friday or Sunday is a holiday it was established that R. Jehudah disagrees with the four Elders and holds that both Sabbath and holiday together form one sanctity and an eruv ¹⁸⁸ Since practice follows the four Elders who permit two different domains for Sabbath and holiday but consider the two days of the New year as one long day. ¹⁸⁹ That the two days of the New Year be kept as holidays even in the Land of Israel and treated as one sanctity. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Eruvin 3:9:3 [Jerusalem Talmud Eruvin 3:9:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Eruvin/r/3:9:3) רִבִּי בָּא רִבִּי חִיָיה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. בְּנֵי אִמִּי נִחֲרוּ בִי וגו׳. מִי גָרַם לִי לִהְיוֹת נוֹטֵר אֶת הַכְּרָמִים. עַל שֵׁם כַּרְמִי שֶׁלִּי לֹא נָטָרְתִּי. מִי גָרַם לִי לִהְיוֹת מְשַׁמֶּרֶת שְׁנֵי יָמִים בְּסוּרְיָא. עַל שֶׁלֹּא שָׁמַרְתִּי יוֹם אֶחָד בָּאָרֶץ. סְבוּרָה הָיִיתִי שֶׁאֲנִי מְקַבֶּלֶת שָׂכָר עַל שְׁנַיִם. וְאֵינִי מְקַבֶּלֶת שָׂכָר אֶלָּא עַל אַחַת. מִי גָרַם לִי לְהַפְרִישׁ שְׁתֵּי חַלּוֹת בְּסוּרְיָא. עַל שֶׁלֹּא הִפְרַשְׁתִּי חַלָּה אַחַת בָּאָרֶץ. סְבוּרָה הָיִיתִי שֶׁאֲנִי מְקַבֶּלֶת שָׂכָר עַל שְׁתַּיִם. וְאֵינִי מְקַבֶּלֶת שָׂכָר אֶלָּא עַל אַחַת. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן קְרִי עֲלֵיהוֹן. גַּם אֲנָי נָתַתִּי לָהֶם חוּקִּים לֹא טוֹבִים. רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ אֲזַל לַאֲלֶכְּסַנְדְּרִיָּאה וְאַטְעִינוֹן לוּלָבִין בְּשׁוּבְתָא. שָׁמַע רִבִּי מִי מַר. מָן מִי יְכוֹל לְהוֹן רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְּכָל שַׁתָּא. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי מִישְׁלַח כְּתִיב לְהוֹן. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁכְּתַבְנוּ לָכֶם סִדְרֵי מוֹעֲדוֹת. אַל תְּשַׁנּוּ מִנהַג אָבוֹתֵיכֶם נוֹחֵי נֶפֶשׁ. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** ¹⁹⁰ 1(43), *Pesiqta dRav Cahana Šimˋu* (ed. Buber p. 118a). Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan¹⁹¹. 1:6.: *My mother’s sons bore ill-will against me,* (etc.) [*they made me a guard of the vineyards; my vineyard I did not guard*.]¹⁹² What caused me to guard the vineyards? Because *my vineyard I did not guard*. What caused me to keep two days in Syria¹⁹³ 7:6 Note 119.? Because I did not keep one day in the Land. I was thinking that I would be rewarded for both, but I am rewarded only for one. What caused me to separate two *ḥallot* in Syria¹⁹⁴ only for produce of the Land (*Num*. 15:18–19). Rabbinic practice extends the obligation to the rest of the world but, since the soil outside the Land is intrinsically impure, any *ḥallah* outside the Land is impure and must be burned. In Syria, some dough has to be given to the Cohen to be consumed in imitation of the obligation in the Land; cf. *Ḥallah* 4:7.? Because I did not separate one *ḥallah* in the Land. I was thinking that I would be rewarded for both, but I am rewarded only for one. Rebbi Joḥanan read for them, *but I* G*ave them prescriptions which are not* G*ood*[*and laws by which they cannot live*]¹⁹⁵. 20:25. He considers the second day of a holiday in the diaspora as a kind of punishment.. Rebbi Abbahu went to Alexandria and made them carry *lulavim* on the Sabbath¹⁹⁶ was a Sabbath he told the Jews of Alexandria to keep only one day of the holiday since he knew the (as yet unpublished) rules of calendar computation. Since the obligation to take the “four kinds” essentially is restricted to the first day (*Lev*. 23:40) he permitted the ceremony on a Sabbath against the rule that in the diaspora the “four kinds” may not be taken on the Sabbath. (Cf. *Sukkah* 3:13).. Rebbi Immi heard it and said, who (feeds them) [brings them]¹⁹⁷ Rebbi Abbahu every year¹⁹⁸? Rebbi Yose sent and wrote to them: even though we wrote you the order of holidays, do not change the usage of your departed ancestors¹⁹⁹ 4b). {Quoted by R. Ḥananel *ad*40b, *Roqeaḥ* §198, *Maˋase Roqeaḥ* §93, *Or zaruaˋ* §140 (vol. 2 p. 211a in the edition Jerusalem 2010).}. footnotes: ¹⁹⁰ Midrash Cant. rabba ¹⁹¹ Cant ¹⁹² Addition from G. ¹⁹³ Those parts of the kingdom of David and Salomon which were not part of the Second Commonwealth; its status was intermediary between that of the Land and the diaspora but holidays were kept there for two days as in the diaspora; cf. Peah ¹⁹⁴ Biblical law prescribes ḥallah ¹⁹⁵ Ez ¹⁹⁶ In a year in which the first day of Sukkot ¹⁹⁷ The text of G [in brackets] is preferable over that of L (in parentheses). ¹⁹⁸ In the absence of a published calendar, the exact computation of the date of the holiday depends on the presence of a competent scholar, which is rare outside the Land. ¹⁹⁹ The action of R. Abbahu is officially disapproved of with the publication of the calendar rules. While today anybody who knows how to add and subtract can compute the Jewish calendar and there is no longer any ambiguity in fixing the holidays, the calendar rules were published by the Academy of R. Yose (the talmudic sources do not mention any participation of the Patriarch) with the explicit stipulation that they may be used only if the second day of holidays be observed outside the Land (Babli Besah ###### Jerusalem Talmud Eruvin 3:10:1 [Jerusalem Talmud Eruvin 3:10:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Eruvin/r/3:10:1) **משנה:** רִבִּי דוֹסָא בֶּן אַרְכִּינַס אוֹמֵר הָעוֹבֵר לִפְנֵי הַתֵּבָה בְּיוֹם טוֹב שֶׁל רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה אוֹמֵר הַחֲלִיצֵנוּ ה׳ אֱלֹהֵינוּ אֶת יוֹם רֹאשׁ הַחֹדֶשׁ הַזֶּה אִם הַיוֹם אִם לְמָחָר וּלְמָחָר הוּא אוֹמֵר אִם הַיוֹם אִם לָאֶמֶשׁ וְלֹא הוֹדוּ לוֹ חֲכָמִים: **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **MISHNAH:** Rebbi Dosa ben Hyrkanos said, the reader²⁹ on New Year’s Day says “save us, Eternal, our God, on this Day of the New Moon, whether it be today or tomorrow.” The next day he says, “whether it be today or was yesterday”; but the Sages did not agree with him. footnotes: ²⁹ Who leads the congregation in prayer and has to mention the holiday. The Sages reject conditional prayers and therefore hold that the New Moon should not be mentioned in the prayers of New Year’s day. ###### Jerusalem Talmud Eruvin 3:10:2 [Jerusalem Talmud Eruvin 3:10:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Eruvin/r/3:10:2) **הלכה:** פיס׳. רִבִּי דוֹסָא בֶּן אַרְכִּינַס אוֹמֵר. הָעוֹבֵר לִפְנֵי הַתֵּיבָה כול׳. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאָמַר. אִם הַיּוֹם אִם אֶמֶשׁ. אוֹ יָיבֹא כַיי דָמַר רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בֵּרִבִּי אָחָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יָסָא. הָעוֹבֵר לִפְנֵי הַתֵּיבָה בְּיוֹם טוֹב שֶׁלְרֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְהַזְכִּיר רֹאשׁ חוֹדֶשׁ. אוֹף הָכָא כֵן. **The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:** **HALAKHAH:** Paragraph: “Rebbi Dosa ben Hyrkanos said, the reader²⁹”, etc. Because²⁰⁰ he says “whether it be today or tomorrow.” Or it comes following what Rebbi Jacob the son of Rebbi Aḥa said, the reader²⁹ on New Year’s Day does not have to mention the New Moon²⁰¹ prayer of the holiday the fact that it is a Day of New Moon is mentioned only indirectly in the quote of *Num*. 10:10 (Babli 40b; *Ševuˋot* 1:5 Note 156).. Also here it is so. footnotes: ²⁹ Who leads the congregation in prayer and has to mention the holiday. The Sages reject conditional prayers and therefore hold that the New Moon should not be mentioned in the prayers of New Year’s day. ²⁰⁰ The Sages might disagree with R. Dosa because one does not formulate prayers intimating that the day might not be holy and holiday prayers inappropriate. ²⁹ Who leads the congregation in prayer and has to mention the holiday. The Sages reject conditional prayers and therefore hold that the New Moon should not be mentioned in the prayers of New Year’s day. ²⁰¹ In the musaf