Various Authors Various Authors - Talmud

If one put it into a cupboard which he locked and then lost the key, the Erub is nevertheless valid. R. Eliezer said: If he does not know where the key is, the Erub is not valid.

GEMARA: R. Ada bar Massne propounded a contradictory question to Rabha: If the man should put his Erub on top of a cane, that does not actually grow out of the ground, it is valid; but if the cane were a growing one, the Erub would not be valid, because the tree would be handled thereby and that is not permitted; then this would be in accordance with the opinion of the sages; while the previous Mishnaoth were according to Rabbi's opinion? This was already asked by Rami bar Hama of R. Hisda and the latter answered, that the previous two Mishnaoth were in accordance with Rabbi's opinion, while this Mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the sages.

Rabhina, however, said, that this Mishna is also in accordance with Rabbi's opinion, but here the precautionary measure is enacted, lest the man might break down the cane if it grew out of the ground, while a tree is too stout to be broken down, and in this case Rabbi concurs with the sages.

One Friday, a military garrison came to Neherdai and occupied the city, so that there was no room for the college of R. Na'hman. Said R. Na'hman to his disciples: "Go out into the field and incline the growing bushes towards each other, so that we have room enough to study in to-morrow." So Rami bar Hama, according to another version, Uqba bar Ada objected: "Did we not learn in this Mishna, that an Erub must not be put on growing stalks or cane?" Answered R. Na'hman: The Mishna refers to brittle (withered) cane, but as for healthy (moist) bushes it is not prohibited.

" If one put it into a cupboard, etc., and lost the key ." Why should the Erub be valid? The man is in one place and the Erub in another? He cannot even obtain it without a key. Rabh and Samuel both said, that the Erub is valid only when the cupboard is not firmly immured but is loosely built, so that the bricks maybe removed and the Erub taken out, and that the Mishna is according to R. Meir's opinion, who holds, that this may be done on a festival to commence with and that the Mishna refers to a festival only, and not on a Sabbath. If this be so, how will the following clause of the Mishna be explained: "R. Eliezer said: If the key be lost in the city, the Erub is valid, but if lost in the field, it is not valid." If the Mishna refers to a festival, what difference does it make where the key was lost. Carrying is not prohibited on a festival? The Mishna is not complete and should read thus: If one put it into a cupboard, which he locked and then lost the key, the Erub is nevertheless valid, providing it was a festival. On Sabbath, however, it is not valid. If the key was subsequently found, whether in the city or in the field, the Erub is nevertheless not valid. R. Eliezer, however, said: If it was found in the city, the Erub is valid, because he holds to R. Simeon's opinion, who said, that all the courts and wood-sheds in the city are as one ground and the key could be brought through them; but if found in the field it could not be carried.

Rabba and R. Joseph both said: "Our Mishna treats of a wooden cupboard and the Tana who holds that if the key was lost, the Erub was valid, considers the cupboard the same as a vessel which may be taken apart on the Sabbath and the Erub taken out, while R. Eliezer considers the cupboard the same as a tent which must not be taken apart on the Sabbath." How can they differ as to its being a vessel or a tent? If it was large all agree, that it is a tent, and if it was small all agree, that it is a vessel? Therefore Abayi and Rabha both say, that the Mishna treats of a case where the key was tied to the lock by a string, which could not be undone by hand. The first Tana holds according to R. Jose, that all vessels may be handled on the Sabbath for any purposes whatever (hence a knife used for cutting bread may be used to cut the string), whereas R. Eliezer holds according to the opinion of R. Nehemiah, who decrees, that all vessels may be handled on Sabbath only for the purposes for which they are intended.

MISHNA: Should the Erub roll (or be moved) out of the limit of the Sabbath distance, should a heap of mould fall on it, or should it be burned, or if the heave-offering (used for the Erub) became unclean, and any or all of this take place while it is yet day ( i.e. , before the Sabbath set in) the Erub is not valid. If it take place, however, after dusk (when it is already Sabbath) the Erub is valid. If the time when it took place is doubtful, R. Meir and R. Jehudah both say: This is (like driving) an ass and (leading) a camel (meaning, that a man is hemmed in on all sides). R. Jose and R. Simeon say: A doubtful Erub is valid? R. Jose further said: Abtolymus attested upon the authority of five elders, that a doubtful Erub is valid.

GEMARA: Said Rabha: (If the Erub rolled outside of the limit of the Sabbath distance) for a distance of over four ells it is not valid; but if it rolled for less than four ells, the man who deposited the Erub is allowed four ells to move in, outside of the limits, consequently the Erub is valid.

" Should a heap of mould fall on it ," etc. At a casual glance it was assumed, that the Erub could have been extracted from under the heap of mould by hand, and accordingly the Mishna was in conformity with the opinion of Rabbi, that at twilight such acts as are prohibited by rabbinical law on account of the Sabbath-rest may be performed; subsequently, however, the conclusion was arrived at, that the Mishna is in accordance with Rabbi's opinion, and that the Erub in this instance could not be extracted by hand but by means of a hoe.

It was necessary to insert both clauses (concerning the rolling of the Erub and its being buried beneath a heap of mould) in the Mishna and for the reason; that, were the first clause only inserted, one might say: "If the Erub rolled out beyond the limits, it was no more in its place and hence it is invalid; but if it was simply buried beneath a heap of mould it is still in its proper place and why should it not be valid?" If the latter clause only had been inserted, one might say: "In this case the Erub was buried and could not be seen, hence it is invalid, but if it merely rolled out and can be seen, the same wind might bring it back, why should it not be valid?" For this reason it was necessary to mention both cases.

" Or should it be burned, or if the heave-offering (used as an Erub) became unclean ," etc. The ordinance referring to an Erub which was burned up is taught in order to show the firmness of R. Jose, who declares, that (if a doubt existed whether the Erub was burned before or after dusk) although the Erub is no longer in existence, it is still valid, and the ordinance referring to heave-offering which became unclean was taught to show the firmness of R. Meir, who maintains that although the heave-offering was still there and only a doubt existed as to whether it became unclean before or after dusk, the Erub is nevertheless invalid. Is it possible, that R. Meir holds a doubtful case based upon rabbinical law to necessitate the more rigorous decision? R. Meir holds, that the law pertaining to Sabbath-limits is biblical. Does R. Meir indeed hold thus? Have we not learned in a Mishna further on (Chapter V., Mishna 3), that R. Meir maintains, when measurements are made to determine the Sabbath-limit and mountains are encountered that it is permitted to cut straight through the mountains (in an imaginary sense or figuratively speaking), and such subterfuges are certainly not allowed where biblical laws are concerned?

The latter opinion while credited to R. Meir is not in reality his own, but the opinion of his teacher, while the former is his own conviction and the proof is, that the Mishna quoted states distinctly: R. Dostai ben Janai said: I have upon the authority of R. Meir, etc.