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׃ 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 eruv15The 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 remains in force.. If it is a matter of uncertainty, Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Jehudah say, he is a donkey driver-camel driver16The 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; 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, Autolas17In other sources the name is אבטולמוס (Ptolemaios). testified in the name of five Elders that in case of a doubt an eruv is qualified18Since the eruv is a rabbinic institution to allow carrying in or walking to places biblically permitted, in cases of doubt one has to permit..
הלכה: פיס׳. נִתְגַּלְגַּל חוּץ לַתְּחוּם כול׳. לֹא אָֽמְרוּ אֶלָּא וְנִיטְמֵאת. סָפֵק נִיטְמֵאת מִבְּעוֹד יוֹם סָפֵק נִיטְמֵאת מִשֶּׁחָשֵׁיכָה. אֲבָל אִם הָֽיְתָה סָפֵק טְהוֹרָה סָפֵק טְמֵיאָה מְעָֽרְבִין בָּהּ. רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹנָתָן. אַחַר חֲזָקוֹת הִלְּכוּ. HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “If it rolled outside the Sabbath boundary,” etc. They said only “if it became impure.115Mishnah 4, the case of an eruv 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 eruv116If the eruv 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 ante117Both 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 6:3 (Note 87)..
מְתִיבִין רִבִּי מֵאִיר וְרִבִּי יוּדָה לְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי וּלְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. אִילּוּ נֶאֱכַל מִבְּעוֹד יוֹם שֶׁמָּא אֵינוֹ אָסוּר. לְעוֹלָם הוּא בְהֵיתֵירוֹ עַד שֶׁיִּווָדַע לוֹ שֶׁהוּא אָסוּר. מְתִיבִין רִבִּי יוֹסֵה וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לְרִבִּי מֵאִיר וּלְרִבִּי יוּדָה. אִילּוּ נֶאֱכַל מִשֶּׁחָשֵׁיכָה שֶׁמָּא אֵינוֹ מוּתָּר. לְעוֹלָם הוּא בְאִיסּוּרוֹ עַד שֶׁיִּווָדַע לוֹ שֶׁהוּא מוּתָּר. Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Jehudah objected to Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon118R. 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. 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?]119The 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. 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?]119The 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. It remains in its prohibited state until it becomes known to you that it is permitted.
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. Does one give him the 2’000 [cubits] to his house120As 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. 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.
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 חִייָה רוֹבָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֵּירִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן לַקוֹנִיָּא. לוֹקִין עַל תְּחוּמֵי שַׁבָּת דְּבַר תּוֹרָה. אָמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי חִייָה רוֹבָה. וַהֲלֹא אֵין בַּשַּׁבָּת אֶלָּא סְקִילָה וְכָרֵת. אָמַר לֵיהּ. וְהָֽכְתִיב אַל־תֹּֽאכְל֤וּ מִמֶּ֨נּוּ֙ נָ֔א. אָמַר לֵיהּ מַה כְתִיב לֹא. אַל כְּתִיב. אָמַר לֵיהּ. וְהָֽכְתִיב שְׁב֣וּ ׀ אִ֣ישׁ תַּחְתָּ֗יו אַל־יֵ֥צֵא אִ֛ישׁ מִמְּקוֹמוֹ בַּיּ֥וֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִֽי׃ 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 בְּקַייָם. וְאֲפִילוּ נִשְׂרַף. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. קִייַמְתִּיהָ כַּיי דָּמַר רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה. הִגִּיעוּךָ סוֹף תְּחוּמֵי שַׂבָּת שֶׁאֵינָן מְחווָרִין 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. There, we have stated121Mishnah Miqwaot 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 proof122If 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 2:1 2nd 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]123The 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 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, Autolas17In other sources the name is אבטולמוס (Ptolemaios). testified in the name of five Elders that in case of a doubt an eruv is qualified18Since the eruv 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 permitted124The 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 are all rabbinic.. Rebbi Ḥinena said, do they not only disagree about their words? And a doubt about their words is for leniency125He holds the opposite view. The Mishnah Miqwaot 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 restriction126A generally recognized principle, cf. Ketubot 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 Torah127Babli 17b. This proves at least that leaving one’s Sabbath domain is a biblical violation.. Rebbi Ḥiyya the Elder said to him, but for Sabbath there is only stoning or extirpation128A 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.? He said to him, is there not written129Ex. 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 written130Ex. 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 tradition131It is unresolved whether leaving one’s domain on the Sabbath is a transgression punishable in court. But the institution of eruv certainly is a rabbinic interpretation of the rules.. Rebbi Samuel bar Sosarta said, they treated eruv as a doubt involving a deaf-mute person132In 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.. Rebbi Jeremiah asked, so far if it exists, or even if it was burned133The preceding makes sense if the eruv 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 Rebbi134This is the text of L which probably is correct. In G: Rav. 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 clear135The 2’000 cubits counted from the city walls are in imitation of the suburban space allotted to the levitic cities (Num. 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 Israel136This is the general tradition that the diameter of the encampment of the Israelites as described in Num. 2 was 3 parsah (12 mil or 90 itinerant stadia): Ševiˋit 6:1 (Note 28), copied in Gittin 1:2 (Note 94), Babli Berakhot 54b, Eruvin 53b, Yoma 75b..