Talmud - Eruvin 17a עירובין י״ז א׳

The Gemara asks: Is that to say that the first clause of Rav Naḥman’s ruling is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, and the latter clause is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis?

The Gemara answers: Yes, because his father, Rabbi Yehuda, holds in accordance with his opinion with regard to areas enclosed for the sake of an individual. This being the case, their opinion on this matter is that of the many.

Rav Giddel said that Rav said: At times, for three people it is prohibited to carry even in an area of five beit se’a; at times, it is permitted for them to carry even in an area of seven beit se’a. These statements appear irreconcilable, and his colleagues said to him: Did Rav actually say that? He said to them: I swear by the Torah, the Prophets, and the Writings, that Rav said so.

Rav Ashi said: What is the difficulty here? Perhaps this is what he is saying: If they needed six beit se’a, and they enclosed seven, they are permitted to carry even in all seven, as one empty beit se’a does not render it prohibited for one to carry in the rest of the area. If, however, they needed only five beit se’a, and they enclosed seven, carrying even in five is prohibited, as there is an unoccupied space of two beit se’a.

The Gemara asks: However, with regard to that which the baraita is teaching, that the partition renders the area fit for one to carry within it provided that there will not be an unoccupied space of two beit se’a, what, is it not in fact referring to space unoccupied by people? In other words, isn’t the baraita teaching that the enclosed area may not be two beit se’a larger than a measure of two beit se’a per person? Accordingly, if three people enclosed an area of seven beit se’a, it should always be permitted for them to carry there, as they are entitled to six beit se’a and only one beit se’a is unoccupied. The Gemara answers: No, it means unoccupied by utensils. Although they would be entitled to six beit se’a if needed, since they need only five in practice and a space of two beit se’a remains unoccupied, the effectiveness of the partitions is negated and carrying therein is prohibited.

It is stated: If there were three people in a caravan and one of them died on Shabbat, or if there were two people, and others were added to them on Shabbat, Rav Huna and Rabbi Yitzḥak disagree with regard to the area in which they are permitted to carry on Shabbat. One said: Shabbat determines the status of the area. The halakha is determined in accordance with the prevailing situation at the onset of Shabbat. And one said that the residents, i.e., the actual number of people present at any given moment, determine the status.

The Gemara comments: Conclude that it is Rav Huna who said that Shabbat determines the status, as Rabba said: I raised a dilemma before Rav Huna, and I raised a dilemma before Rav Yehuda with regard to the following case: If one established an eiruv to join one courtyard to another via a certain opening and that opening was sealed on Shabbat, or if one established an eiruv via a certain window and that window was sealed on Shabbat, what is the halakha? Can one continue to rely on this eiruv and carry from one courtyard to the other via other entrances? And he said to me: Since it was permitted to carry from courtyard to courtyard at the onset of Shabbat, it was permitted and remains so until Shabbat’s conclusion. The Gemara comments: Indeed, conclude that it is Rav Huna who maintains the determining factor is Shabbat, not the residents.

The Gemara asks: Let us say that Rav Huna and Rabbi Yitzḥak are disagreeing in the earlier dispute of the tanna’im Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Yehuda. As we learned in a mishna: If during Shabbat a courtyard was breached from two of its sides, or if a house was breached from two of its sides, or if an alleyway’s cross beams or side posts were removed, it is permitted to carry within them on that Shabbat, but it is prohibited to do so in the future; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

Rabbi Yosei says: If it is permitted to carry there on that Shabbat, it is also permitted to do so in the future. However, if it is prohibited to carry there in the future, it is also prohibited to do so on that Shabbat. Since it is prohibited to carry there in the future, it is also prohibited to carry there on that Shabbat. This opinion disputes the principle that since it is permitted at the onset of Shabbat it remains permitted.

Let us say that it is Rav Huna who stated his opinion in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and he held that the situation at the onset of Shabbat determines the halakhic status. And it is Rabbi Yitzḥak who stated his opinion in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei.

The Gemara rejects this explanation. Rav Huna could have said to you: It is I who stated my opinion even in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. Rabbi Yosei stated his opinion only there, in a case where there are no longer partitions intact; however, here there are partitions intact. Since the status of the area is dependent upon the existence of partitions, he would also agree that carrying is permitted in this case.

And Rabbi Yitzḥak could have said to you: It is I who stated my opinion even in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yehuda stated his opinion only there, in a case where there are residents. However, here, there are no remaining residents that are alive, so he too would prohibit carrying.

We learned in the mishna: However, the Rabbis say: One of the two elements, either vertical or horizontal, is sufficient. The Gemara asks: This is identical to the opinion of the first tanna of the mishna. What did the Rabbis add?

The Gemara answers: There is a practical halakhic difference between them with regard to an individual in a settlement. The first tanna does not allow one to rely on a partition of this type ab initio, whereas the Rabbis permit doing so in all cases.

MISHNA: The Sages exempted a soldier in a military camp in four matters: One may bring wood for kindling from any place with no concern that he is stealing wood from its owners; and one is exempt from ritual washing of the hands before eating; and one is exempt from the separation of tithes from doubtfully tithed produce [demai], i.e., produce purchased from an am ha’aretz, one who is not diligent in separating tithes; and one is exempt from establishing an eiruv.

GEMARA: The Sages taught in a Tosefta: With regard to a military camp that goes out to wage an optional war, it is permitted for the soldiers to steal dry wood. Rabbi Yehuda ben Teima says: They may also encamp in any location, even if they damage the field in which they are encamped. And in the place where they were killed, there they are buried and the owner of the site cannot object, as moving the corpse for burial elsewhere dishonors the dead.

The Gemara analyzes this Tosefta. What is the novelty in the following statement: They are permitted to steal dry wood? This was an ordinance enacted by Joshua, as the Master said in a baraita: There is a tradition that Joshua stipulated ten conditions with the Jewish people as they entered Eretz Yisrael, among them that one may graze his animals in woods belonging to others without objection, and one may gather wood for his own use from their fields.

The Gemara answers: There, Joshua’s ordinance permitted gathering various types of shrubs [hizmei] and thorns [higei], with regard to which people are not particular; here, the ordinance in the mishna pertaining to a military camp is referring to other types of wood.

Alternatively: There, Joshua’s ordinance referred to gathering thorns still attached to the ground, as removing those thorns benefits the field’s owner. Here, however, the mishna is referring to gathering thorns that are already detached.

Alternatively: There, Joshua’s ordinance referred to gathering moist thorns. Owners are not particular about them because they are not immediately suitable for kindling. Here, the mishna is referring even to dry thorns.

It was taught in the Tosefta that Rabbi Yehuda ben Teima says: They may also encamp in any place, and in the place where they were killed, there they are buried. The Gemara raises a difficulty: This is obvious, as a body of a dead soldier is considered to be a corpse with no one to bury it [met mitzva], and the principle is that a met mitzva acquires its place. In other words, the body must be interred where it is found, and the owner of the field cannot prevent burial.

The Gemara answers: No, this ostensibly obvious statement is indeed necessary to teach that this principle applies in the case of a military camp, even though

Traduction : The William Davidson digital edition of the Koren Noé Talmud, with commentary by Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz.

Eruvin 17a explores rabbinic disputes over enclosed courtyard sizes, examining how beit se'a measurements determine permitted carrying space for groups.