Various Authors Various Authors - Talmud

The following Boraitha is in support of the dictum of Samuel as quoted by R. Jehudah: R. Simeon said, "What can this be compared to? Three courts opening into each other and also opening into public ground. If the two outer courts had combined in an Erub with the middle one, a man is at liberty to carry victuals from either of the outer courts into the middle court and eat them, then remove the remainder (but a man of the middle court must not carry things into the outer courts);" the sages however said: "No connection is permitted between the three courts."

Samuel in making this statement holds to his theory advanced elsewhere: If there is a court between two entries, and an Erub was made by the court with both entries, connection between the court and both entries is nevertheless prohibited (but in each entry separately things may be carried); if, however, no Erub was made by the court with either of the two entries, the court acts as a bar so that carrying in either entry is prohibited even by the inhabitants of the entries. If the court, however, made more frequent use of one entry to the neglect of the other, it acts as a bar only to the one frequently used, but the inhabitants of the neglected entry may carry therein.

Said Rabba bar R. Huna: If the court made an Erub with the entry used only on rare occasions (it is evident, that henceforth, the court intends to make more frequent use of this entry and to abandon the other entry) then the other entry becomes separated and the inhabitants thereof may carry therein.

Rabba bar R. Huna said again in the name of Samuel: If the entry more frequently used by the court made an Erub for its own use, and the court itself as well as the neglected entry did not make any Erubin for their own use, the court is relegated to the neglected entry, but cannot prove a bar to the entry having an Erub, because that were otherwise as the manner of the Sodomites, i.e. , if an act is perpetrated which is neither beneficial nor injurious to the perpetrator but solely in order to injure another, the perpetrator is compelled to desist. (The comparison is made to the case in question as follows: Neither the inhabitants of the court itself nor of the entry may carry within their precincts nor even within the entry provided with an Erub, and hence it would not be just, if, because they were not permitted to carry, they should prove a bar to those who by virtue of their Erub are allowed to do so.)

R. Jehudah said in the name of Samuel: "The Erub of a man who is particular about it that his fellow (with whom he had joined in the Erub) should not eat it, is of no account. Why so? Because the word Erub signifies commixture, i.e. , those who make the Erub can individually do with it as they see fit, and if one man is particular about it, its intent is abolished." R. Hanina however said: The Erub is valid; but a man of that kind is like the men of Vardina (who were notoriously penurious).

R. Jehudah said again in the name of Samuel: "An Erub which is divided by a man in two parts or deposited by him in two separate vessels is of no account." Then Samuel's dictum is in accordance with Beth Shammai, as stated in the Boraitha (page 108): We may assume that Samuel's teaching may be also according to Beth Hillel; for the latter hold, that the Erub is valid only then, if one vessel was filled with it and the remainder had to be put into another vessel, but if it was originally divided and then deposited, it is not valid.

Samuel said: "The virtual intent of the Erub is, that by mutual interchange of articles, the right to the ground is bought and sold." Why then are eatables necessary; could it not have been permitted to make an Erub with money? Because, as a usual thing on the eve of Sabbath money is scarce. (If that is so, then why should an Erub that had been made with money not be valid? This is merely a precautionary measure, lest it should be said that the main principle of an Erub is money, and in the case of a lack of money, eatables will not be used in its stead, and thus the law of Erubin will sink into oblivion.) Rabba, however, said, that the Erub signifies, that wherever the victuals have been deposited, there the man resides, i.e. , wherever a man's bread is, there is also his domicile. What is the point of difference between Samuel and Rabba? The points of difference are as follows: A vessel of any value, victuals worth less than a Prutah (a coin of minimum value) and a minor. (According to Samuel a vessel having a market value may be used, but according to Rabba it does not follow that if it is deposited in a certain place the owner resides there, hence it must not be used. Victuals worth less than a Prutah, according to Samuel, not having a market value, must not be used, but according to Rabba, being eatables, may be deposited. A minor, according to Samuel, cannot be commissioned to act because no money consideration can be intrusted to him, and according to Rabba where he only gathers the material for the Erub, he may be commissioned to act.)

Said Rabba in the name of R. Hama bar Guria, quoting Rabh: The Halakha prevails according to R. Simeon.

MISHNA: Should a man, when overtaken by dusk on the road (on the eve of Sabbath), single out a tree or a hedge and say: "I will take my Sabbath-rest underneath it," ( legally ) he has said nothing, but if he says: "I will take my Sabbath-rest at its base," he may go from the spot on which he stands to the base of the tree or hedge two thousand ells and thence to his domicile two thousand ells more; thus it may be seen, that a man may go four thousand ells after dark (on Sabbath). If he cannot single out a tree or a hedge or is not conversant with the Halakha (covering his case) and says: "I will take my Sabbath-rest on the place where I stand," the spot upon which he stands (virtually) gives him two thousand ells in any direction; in a circle, according to the dictum of R. Hanina ben Antignous; but the sages hold, that he has two thousand ells in a square, so as to enable him to take advantage of the angles. This rule is explanatory to the saying (of the sages): "The poor prepare their Erubs with their feet." R. Meir said: "This rule is applied only to the poor," but R. Jehudah replied: It applies to poor and rich both; inasmuch as the Erub to be made with bread was only decreed in order to render its observance easier for the wealthy, so that they should not be compelled to go out and prepare the Erub with their own feet.

GEMARA: What is meant by "legally he has said nothing"? Said Rabh: "It means literally that he has said nothing and must not move from his place; (because where he stands, he did not acquire the right to rest on Sabbath, his intention having been to rest underneath the tree. Underneath the tree he acquired no right, not having specified the spot where he would rest, and although the space underneath the tree is within two thousand ells from his position at the time, as long as he did not specify the exact spot he must not go there)." Samuel, however, said: It means, that he said nothing concerning the distance from the tree to his domicile but he may traverse the distance from where he stands to the tree (because the entire space underneath the tree is within two thousand ells of his position at the time, and the distance from his domicile is only two thousand ells to the base of the tree, but to the entire space underneath the tree it is more than two thousand ells); hence this entire space is like driving an ass and leading a camel, for it is not known from which side the distance to his domicile is two thousand ells. If it be measured from the north, chances are that it should be measured from the south, and vice versa .

Said Rabba: (Samuel's opinion is feasible, for he says, that the man acquired the right to two thousand ells from where he stands; but not having determined the exact spot underneath the tree, he loses the further two thousand ells to his domicile) but what grounds has Rabh for his opinion? Rabh holds, that if two intentions, one consequent upon the other, are expressed in one assertion, the inability to carry out one intention destroys the other also (and in this case as the man cannot proceed from the tree to the domicile it invalidates his right to go from his place to the tree). What is the difference between the two opinions? The difference is if one says, "I will take my rest in the four ells of the eight ells underneath the tree," according to those who hold that the place of rest must be exactly determined, it is of no value, but he who holds that if two intentions, one consequent upon the other, are expressed in one assertion, the inability to carry out one intention destroys the other also, in this case when he determines four ells it may be called the exact spot, and is valid.