תלמוד על עירובין 7:1

HALAKHAH: “How does one participate for domains,” etc. One does not state “one transfers rights.³⁰In Mishnah 7:6, about participation in an alley.” Why does one not state “one transfers rights”? Samuel said, there³¹Mishnah 7:6. He holds that for eruvin of domains no transfer of rights is necessary (Babli 80a). Probably in his eyes such a transfer would be impossible. For participation in an alley the persons to whom the rights are transferred form a well defined group: all dwellers in the alley. But for eruvin of domains the Mishnah requires a conscious act of joining the eruv; it cannot be known beforehand who is going to join and who won’t. we stated that “one transfers rights,” one has to transfer rights; but here, where we did not state “one transfers rights”, one does not have to transfer rights. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is a matter of a conclusion de minore ad maius. If there, where eruvin of courtyards are a rabbinic institution you are saying that one has to transfer rights, not so much more eruvin of domains which are words of the Torah³²He holds that a transfer of rights “to whom it may concern” is required. This is not mentioned in the Mishnah since it is a logical consequence of Mishnah 7:6.? Rav follows Rebbi Joḥanan³³In the Yerushalmi since is indicated only here; in the Babli 80a it is stated that Rav and Samuel disagree about the matter., (and)³⁴The scribe wrote ומר “and said” which was corrected (probably wrongly) by the corrector into אמר “he said”. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, to treat all domains equally³⁴The scribe wrote ומר “and said” which was corrected (probably wrongly) by the corrector into אמר “he said”..

HALAKHAH: “With anything one may make an eruv or participate,” etc. Rebbi Aḥa said, this is Rebbi Eliezer’s, as we have stated there³⁰Mishnah 7:10, detailing the rules for eruvin 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 domains³¹This sentence makes no sense as it stands since one makes an eruv 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 it³²Obviously a reference “the words of R. Meïr” is missing here. For an eruv teḥumim 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 them³³Since they are eaten raw only with bread, or because they cause bad mouth odor, see below., as it was stated: Rebbi Jehudah said, it happened that Rebbi Meïr spent a Sabbath at Ardaksam³⁴In the Babli 29a the place is ערדיסקא. It must have been in lower Galilee not far from Tivˋon.; there came a person who said, I made an eruv with onions and Rebbi Meïr restricted him to his four cubits³⁵Tosephta 6:4. If he came from another place to hear R. Meïr on basis of an invalid eruv, 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 with³⁶Since they are not edible when raw..

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. ⁴⁵Mishnah 2.“If a wall between two courtyards,” etc. Why does it have to be four [hand-breadths] wide? Even if it is not four [hand-breadths] wide? Because of what is stated later: “both sides may climb up and eat them.³If on the top of the wall there is any food, it may be taken from either side on the Sabbath if it is accessible by ladders before the start of the Sabbath. If the top of the wall is 4 hand-breadths wide it defines a domain by itself which cannot be included in the eruv of either side. In this case the food may not be taken down.” If it is not four [hand-breadths] wide, Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav: it is forbidden for both sides. Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rav: it is permitted for both sides. The argument of Rebbi Abba seems inverted⁴⁶Since there seems to be no reason to forbid taking the food in this case.. There Rebbi Abba said, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: If he threw it and it came to rest on top of a partition he is liable⁴⁷If somebody stands in the public domain and throws something for more than 4 cubits and it come to rest on the narrow top of a fence of a private domain it is considered as coming to rest inside the private domain; the thrower is liable for a biblical Sabbath violation.. And here, he says so⁴⁸Since he forbids access to the top of a narrow wall between private domains he must hold that this is a separate domain; then there is no difference whether the wall be four hand-breadths wide or not, against the statement of the Mishnah.
The answer is that if one considers the private domain as filled up with dust or pebbles to the height of the fence, the top of the fence clearly belongs to the private domain. But here one is speaking of a wall between two private domains where the argument is inappropriate.? There one considers it as if filled with dust and pebbles. Here, what do you have? You should know this since Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥinena said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Ledges and walls high ten [hand-breadths] and wide four are permitted for both sides, on condition that he may not exchange⁴⁹Šabbat Chapter 1 Note 170, Babli Šabbat 8b, 99b.. Rebbi Joḥanan⁵⁰For reasons of chronology it is difficult to accept the reading “R. Joḥanan”. Pene Moshe emends to “R. Ḥanan”. asked. The argument of Rebbi Abba seems inverted. There Rebbi Abba said, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: If he threw it and it came to rest on top of a partition he is liable. And here, he says so? You are saying there, one considers it as if filled with dust and pebbles; here it is the same.