rebbi

Paragraph. “One who vows not to eat food is permitted water and salt.” There, we have stated: “One who made a vow to abstain from cooked food is permitted roasted and scalded food.” A Mishnah states that scalding is called cooking, as we have stated: “If he cooked the well-being offering or scalded it.” A verse states that “roasted” is called “cooked” as it is said: They cooked the Pesaḥ in fire. If you say, against the rules, Rebbi Jonah from Bostra said, as is the rule. A Mishnah [states] that scalded is called cooked, and a verse that roasted is called cooked; but did we not state: “One who makes a vow to abstain from cooked food is permitted roasted and scalded food”? Rebbi Joḥanan said, in matters of vows one follows common usage. Rebbi Joshia said, in matters of vows one follows biblical usage. What is the difference between them? If one said, a qonam that I shall not taste wine on Tabernacles. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan he is forbidden on the last day of the holiday. In the opinion of Rebbi Joshia, is he permitted? Also Rebbi Joshia agrees that he is prohibited. Rebbi Joshia said it only for restrictions.

Paragraph. “One who vows not to eat food is permitted water and salt.” There, we have stated: “One who made a vow to abstain from cooked food is permitted roasted and scalded food.” A Mishnah states that scalding is called cooking, as we have stated: “If he cooked the well-being offering or scalded it.” A verse states that “roasted” is called “cooked” as it is said: They cooked the Pesaḥ in fire. If you say, against the rules, Rebbi Jonah from Bostra said, as is the rule. A Mishnah [states] that scalded is called cooked, and a verse that roasted is called cooked; but did we not state: “One who makes a vow to abstain from cooked food is permitted roasted and scalded food”? Rebbi Joḥanan said, in matters of vows one follows common usage. Rebbi Joshia said, in matters of vows one follows biblical usage. What is the difference between them? If one said, a qonam that I shall not taste wine on Tabernacles. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan he is forbidden on the last day of the holiday. In the opinion of Rebbi Joshia, is he permitted? Also Rebbi Joshia agrees that he is prohibited. Rebbi Joshia said it only for restrictions.

Paragraph. “One who vows not to eat food is permitted water and salt.” There, we have stated: “One who made a vow to abstain from cooked food is permitted roasted and scalded food.” A Mishnah states that scalding is called cooking, as we have stated: “If he cooked the well-being offering or scalded it.” A verse states that “roasted” is called “cooked” as it is said: They cooked the Pesaḥ in fire. If you say, against the rules, Rebbi Jonah from Bostra said, as is the rule. A Mishnah [states] that scalded is called cooked, and a verse that roasted is called cooked; but did we not state: “One who makes a vow to abstain from cooked food is permitted roasted and scalded food”? Rebbi Joḥanan said, in matters of vows one follows common usage. Rebbi Joshia said, in matters of vows one follows biblical usage. What is the difference between them? If one said, a qonam that I shall not taste wine on Tabernacles. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan he is forbidden on the last day of the holiday. In the opinion of Rebbi Joshia, is he permitted? Also Rebbi Joshia agrees that he is prohibited. Rebbi Joshia said it only for restrictions.

Paragraph. “One who vows not to eat food is permitted water and salt.” There, we have stated: “One who made a vow to abstain from cooked food is permitted roasted and scalded food.” A Mishnah states that scalding is called cooking, as we have stated: “If he cooked the well-being offering or scalded it.” A verse states that “roasted” is called “cooked” as it is said: They cooked the Pesaḥ in fire. If you say, against the rules, Rebbi Jonah from Bostra said, as is the rule. A Mishnah [states] that scalded is called cooked, and a verse that roasted is called cooked; but did we not state: “One who makes a vow to abstain from cooked food is permitted roasted and scalded food”? Rebbi Joḥanan said, in matters of vows one follows common usage. Rebbi Joshia said, in matters of vows one follows biblical usage. What is the difference between them? If one said, a qonam that I shall not taste wine on Tabernacles. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan he is forbidden on the last day of the holiday. In the opinion of Rebbi Joshia, is he permitted? Also Rebbi Joshia agrees that he is prohibited. Rebbi Joshia said it only for restrictions.

Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, Rebbi Joḥanan ate bake-meats and said, I did not taste (anything) [food] on that day. But did we not state: “He who made a vow not to eat food is permitted water and salt”? Explain it following Rebbi Joshia, who said, in matters of vows one follows biblical usage. And from where that everything is called food? Rebbi Aḥa bar Ulla said: And tenfemale donkeys carrying grain, bread, and food. Why does the verse say, and food? From here that everything is called food.

Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, Rebbi Joḥanan ate bake-meats and said, I did not taste (anything) [food] on that day. But did we not state: “He who made a vow not to eat food is permitted water and salt”? Explain it following Rebbi Joshia, who said, in matters of vows one follows biblical usage. And from where that everything is called food? Rebbi Aḥa bar Ulla said: And tenfemale donkeys carrying grain, bread, and food. Why does the verse say, and food? From here that everything is called food.

Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, Rebbi Joḥanan ate bake-meats and said, I did not taste (anything) [food] on that day. But did we not state: “He who made a vow not to eat food is permitted water and salt”? Explain it following Rebbi Joshia, who said, in matters of vows one follows biblical usage. And from where that everything is called food? Rebbi Aḥa bar Ulla said: And tenfemale donkeys carrying grain, bread, and food. Why does the verse say, and food? From here that everything is called food.

Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, Rebbi Joḥanan ate bake-meats and said, I did not taste (anything) [food] on that day. But did we not state: “He who made a vow not to eat food is permitted water and salt”? Explain it following Rebbi Joshia, who said, in matters of vows one follows biblical usage. And from where that everything is called food? Rebbi Aḥa bar Ulla said: And tenfemale donkeys carrying grain, bread, and food. Why does the verse say, and food? From here that everything is called food.

If he forbade himself a loaf by a vow it may be used as eruv, if he dedicated it it may not be used as eruv. If he forbade himself a loaf by a vow it may be used as eruv, since another person may eat it. If he dedicated it it may not be used as eruv, since neither he nor another person may eat it. Rebbi Aḥa asked, may not a person ask about his dedication? Rebbi Aḥa said that Rebbi Miasha asked: There Rebbi Simeon said that Ḥiyya the son of Rav said, if one used idolatry to make a lath it permits the alley, and here you are saying so? Rebbi Eleazar said, there in any case the alley was closed; here what do you have?

If he forbade himself a loaf by a vow it may be used as eruv, if he dedicated it it may not be used as eruv. If he forbade himself a loaf by a vow it may be used as eruv, since another person may eat it. If he dedicated it it may not be used as eruv, since neither he nor another person may eat it. Rebbi Aḥa asked, may not a person ask about his dedication? Rebbi Aḥa said that Rebbi Miasha asked: There Rebbi Simeon said that Ḥiyya the son of Rav said, if one used idolatry to make a lath it permits the alley, and here you are saying so? Rebbi Eleazar said, there in any case the alley was closed; here what do you have?

If he forbade himself a loaf by a vow it may be used as eruv, if he dedicated it it may not be used as eruv. If he forbade himself a loaf by a vow it may be used as eruv, since another person may eat it. If he dedicated it it may not be used as eruv, since neither he nor another person may eat it. Rebbi Aḥa asked, may not a person ask about his dedication? Rebbi Aḥa said that Rebbi Miasha asked: There Rebbi Simeon said that Ḥiyya the son of Rav said, if one used idolatry to make a lath it permits the alley, and here you are saying so? Rebbi Eleazar said, there in any case the alley was closed; here what do you have?

If he forbade himself a loaf by a vow it may be used as eruv, if he dedicated it it may not be used as eruv. If he forbade himself a loaf by a vow it may be used as eruv, since another person may eat it. If he dedicated it it may not be used as eruv, since neither he nor another person may eat it. Rebbi Aḥa asked, may not a person ask about his dedication? Rebbi Aḥa said that Rebbi Miasha asked: There Rebbi Simeon said that Ḥiyya the son of Rav said, if one used idolatry to make a lath it permits the alley, and here you are saying so? Rebbi Eleazar said, there in any case the alley was closed; here what do you have?

If he forbade himself a loaf by a vow it may be used as eruv, if he dedicated it it may not be used as eruv. If he forbade himself a loaf by a vow it may be used as eruv, since another person may eat it. If he dedicated it it may not be used as eruv, since neither he nor another person may eat it. Rebbi Aḥa asked, may not a person ask about his dedication? Rebbi Aḥa said that Rebbi Miasha asked: There Rebbi Simeon said that Ḥiyya the son of Rav said, if one used idolatry to make a lath it permits the alley, and here you are saying so? Rebbi Eleazar said, there in any case the alley was closed; here what do you have?

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “One may make an eruv with demay, and with First Tithe.” Rebbi Jacob the Southerner asked, is our Mishnah not following the House of Shammai? As we have stated, “of demay, the House of Shammai declare invalid but the House of Hillel declare valid. Of Second Tithe in Jerusalem one should not take but if he took it is valid.”

Rav Sheshet in the name of the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya: It is permitted to move ṭevel which has a condition on it. How does he do it? He puts his eyes on a small part and eats the remainder. And it was stated: The House of Shammai say, one does not use Second Tithe as eruv in Jerusalem. Rebbi Jeremiah said, this you are saying about eruv of courtyards. But for an eruv of domains, a villager who deposits his eruv at Jerusalem can go there and eat it.

Rav Sheshet in the name of the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya: It is permitted to move ṭevel which has a condition on it. How does he do it? He puts his eyes on a small part and eats the remainder. And it was stated: The House of Shammai say, one does not use Second Tithe as eruv in Jerusalem. Rebbi Jeremiah said, this you are saying about eruv of courtyards. But for an eruv of domains, a villager who deposits his eruv at Jerusalem can go there and eat it.

Samuel said, if he is nine or ten years old his eruv is an eruv. Rebbi Yose said, this you are saying about eruv of domains. But for an eruv of courtyards, even if he is small. Rebbi Joshua [ben Levi] said, why does one make eruv of courtyards? Because of peaceful relations. It happened that a woman was hostile to another and sent her her eruv through her son. She took him, embraced him, and kissed him. He went and told it before his mother. She said, obviously she loves me and I did not know it. As a consequence they made peace. That is what is written, its ways are ways of pleasantness and all its paths peace.

Samuel said, if he is nine or ten years old his eruv is an eruv. Rebbi Yose said, this you are saying about eruv of domains. But for an eruv of courtyards, even if he is small. Rebbi Joshua [ben Levi] said, why does one make eruv of courtyards? Because of peaceful relations. It happened that a woman was hostile to another and sent her her eruv through her son. She took him, embraced him, and kissed him. He went and told it before his mother. She said, obviously she loves me and I did not know it. As a consequence they made peace. That is what is written, its ways are ways of pleasantness and all its paths peace.

Paragraph. “If somebody sends his eruv through a deaf-and-dumb or insane person, or a minor,” etc. Rebbi Eleazar said, he has to be with him. There Rebbi Yose said in the name of Rebbi Sheshet, Rebbi Eleazar the son of Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Abun: If somebody says to another I shall tithe for you, he does not have to be with him. And here, you say so? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, here about an adult, there about a minor. Rebbi Aḥa said in the name of Rebbi Ḥinena, you may even say in both cases we deal with an adult or in both cases we deal with a minor. There, when he says, I shall tithe for you, he does not have to be with him. But here, he says make an eruv for me! This learns from that and that learns from this. This learns from that, if he says I shall tithe for you, he does not have to be with him. That learns from this, if he says make an eruv for me, he has to be with him.

Paragraph. “If somebody sends his eruv through a deaf-and-dumb or insane person, or a minor,” etc. Rebbi Eleazar said, he has to be with him. There Rebbi Yose said in the name of Rebbi Sheshet, Rebbi Eleazar the son of Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Abun: If somebody says to another I shall tithe for you, he does not have to be with him. And here, you say so? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, here about an adult, there about a minor. Rebbi Aḥa said in the name of Rebbi Ḥinena, you may even say in both cases we deal with an adult or in both cases we deal with a minor. There, when he says, I shall tithe for you, he does not have to be with him. But here, he says make an eruv for me! This learns from that and that learns from this. This learns from that, if he says I shall tithe for you, he does not have to be with him. That learns from this, if he says make an eruv for me, he has to be with him.

Paragraph. “If somebody sends his eruv through a deaf-and-dumb or insane person, or a minor,” etc. Rebbi Eleazar said, he has to be with him. There Rebbi Yose said in the name of Rebbi Sheshet, Rebbi Eleazar the son of Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Abun: If somebody says to another I shall tithe for you, he does not have to be with him. And here, you say so? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, here about an adult, there about a minor. Rebbi Aḥa said in the name of Rebbi Ḥinena, you may even say in both cases we deal with an adult or in both cases we deal with a minor. There, when he says, I shall tithe for you, he does not have to be with him. But here, he says make an eruv for me! This learns from that and that learns from this. This learns from that, if he says I shall tithe for you, he does not have to be with him. That learns from this, if he says make an eruv for me, he has to be with him.

Paragraph. “If somebody sends his eruv through a deaf-and-dumb or insane person, or a minor,” etc. Rebbi Eleazar said, he has to be with him. There Rebbi Yose said in the name of Rebbi Sheshet, Rebbi Eleazar the son of Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Abun: If somebody says to another I shall tithe for you, he does not have to be with him. And here, you say so? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, here about an adult, there about a minor. Rebbi Aḥa said in the name of Rebbi Ḥinena, you may even say in both cases we deal with an adult or in both cases we deal with a minor. There, when he says, I shall tithe for you, he does not have to be with him. But here, he says make an eruv for me! This learns from that and that learns from this. This learns from that, if he says I shall tithe for you, he does not have to be with him. That learns from this, if he says make an eruv for me, he has to be with him.

Paragraph. “If somebody sends his eruv through a deaf-and-dumb or insane person, or a minor,” etc. Rebbi Eleazar said, he has to be with him. There Rebbi Yose said in the name of Rebbi Sheshet, Rebbi Eleazar the son of Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Abun: If somebody says to another I shall tithe for you, he does not have to be with him. And here, you say so? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, here about an adult, there about a minor. Rebbi Aḥa said in the name of Rebbi Ḥinena, you may even say in both cases we deal with an adult or in both cases we deal with a minor. There, when he says, I shall tithe for you, he does not have to be with him. But here, he says make an eruv for me! This learns from that and that learns from this. This learns from that, if he says I shall tithe for you, he does not have to be with him. That learns from this, if he says make an eruv for me, he has to be with him.

Paragraph. “If somebody sends his eruv through a deaf-and-dumb or insane person, or a minor,” etc. Rebbi Eleazar said, he has to be with him. There Rebbi Yose said in the name of Rebbi Sheshet, Rebbi Eleazar the son of Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Abun: If somebody says to another I shall tithe for you, he does not have to be with him. And here, you say so? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, here about an adult, there about a minor. Rebbi Aḥa said in the name of Rebbi Ḥinena, you may even say in both cases we deal with an adult or in both cases we deal with a minor. There, when he says, I shall tithe for you, he does not have to be with him. But here, he says make an eruv for me! This learns from that and that learns from this. This learns from that, if he says I shall tithe for you, he does not have to be with him. That learns from this, if he says make an eruv for me, he has to be with him.

Paragraph. “If somebody sends his eruv through a deaf-and-dumb or insane person, or a minor,” etc. Rebbi Eleazar said, he has to be with him. There Rebbi Yose said in the name of Rebbi Sheshet, Rebbi Eleazar the son of Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Abun: If somebody says to another I shall tithe for you, he does not have to be with him. And here, you say so? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, here about an adult, there about a minor. Rebbi Aḥa said in the name of Rebbi Ḥinena, you may even say in both cases we deal with an adult or in both cases we deal with a minor. There, when he says, I shall tithe for you, he does not have to be with him. But here, he says make an eruv for me! This learns from that and that learns from this. This learns from that, if he says I shall tithe for you, he does not have to be with him. That learns from this, if he says make an eruv for me, he has to be with him.

Paragraph. “If somebody sends his eruv through a deaf-and-dumb or insane person, or a minor,” etc. Rebbi Eleazar said, he has to be with him. There Rebbi Yose said in the name of Rebbi Sheshet, Rebbi Eleazar the son of Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Abun: If somebody says to another I shall tithe for you, he does not have to be with him. And here, you say so? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, here about an adult, there about a minor. Rebbi Aḥa said in the name of Rebbi Ḥinena, you may even say in both cases we deal with an adult or in both cases we deal with a minor. There, when he says, I shall tithe for you, he does not have to be with him. But here, he says make an eruv for me! This learns from that and that learns from this. This learns from that, if he says I shall tithe for you, he does not have to be with him. That learns from this, if he says make an eruv for me, he has to be with him.

Paragraph. “If somebody sends his eruv through a deaf-and-dumb or insane person, or a minor,” etc. Rebbi Eleazar said, he has to be with him. There Rebbi Yose said in the name of Rebbi Sheshet, Rebbi Eleazar the son of Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Abun: If somebody says to another I shall tithe for you, he does not have to be with him. And here, you say so? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, here about an adult, there about a minor. Rebbi Aḥa said in the name of Rebbi Ḥinena, you may even say in both cases we deal with an adult or in both cases we deal with a minor. There, when he says, I shall tithe for you, he does not have to be with him. But here, he says make an eruv for me! This learns from that and that learns from this. This learns from that, if he says I shall tithe for you, he does not have to be with him. That learns from this, if he says make an eruv for me, he has to be with him.

MISHNAH: If he deposited it in a tree higher than ten hand-breadths it is not an eruv; below ten hand-breadths it is an eruv. If he put it in a cistern even 100 cubits deep it is an eruv. If he put it on top of a stick or a pole as long as it was uprooted and inserted it is an eruv even if 100 cubits high. If he put it into a tower it is an eruv even if the key was lost. Rebbi Eliezer said, if it is not known that the key is in its place it is no eruv.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “If he deposited it in a tree more than ten hand-breadths high,” etc. It is an eruv but it is forbidden to move it; below three it is permitted. This is difficult. If his eruv is a [valid] eruv one should be permitted to move it. If one is forbidden to move it his eruv should not be a [valid] eruv. He might transgress the rabbinic prohibition and eat. Then also higher than ten [hand-breadths]? Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel, explain it if its stem was four [hand-breadths]. Rebbi Mana said, only if the public domain surrounds it on all sides; he says my Sabbath rest shall be below it. It was stated: If he put it in a basket and hung it on a tree, higher than ten hand-breadths high it is not an eruv; below ten hand-breadth it is an eruv but it is forbidden to move it; below three it is permitted. This is difficult. If his eruv is a [valid] eruv one should be permitted to move it. If one is forbidden to move it his eruv should not be a [valid] eruv. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ḥinena: He might turn it upside down and annul the private domain created by it. Rebbi Yose said, this implies that a bench in the public domain high ten and wide four [hand-breadths], since one may tilt it and annul the private domain created by it, it implies that his eruv is a [valid] eruv and it is permitted to move it.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “If he deposited it in a tree more than ten hand-breadths high,” etc. It is an eruv but it is forbidden to move it; below three it is permitted. This is difficult. If his eruv is a [valid] eruv one should be permitted to move it. If one is forbidden to move it his eruv should not be a [valid] eruv. He might transgress the rabbinic prohibition and eat. Then also higher than ten [hand-breadths]? Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel, explain it if its stem was four [hand-breadths]. Rebbi Mana said, only if the public domain surrounds it on all sides; he says my Sabbath rest shall be below it. It was stated: If he put it in a basket and hung it on a tree, higher than ten hand-breadths high it is not an eruv; below ten hand-breadth it is an eruv but it is forbidden to move it; below three it is permitted. This is difficult. If his eruv is a [valid] eruv one should be permitted to move it. If one is forbidden to move it his eruv should not be a [valid] eruv. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ḥinena: He might turn it upside down and annul the private domain created by it. Rebbi Yose said, this implies that a bench in the public domain high ten and wide four [hand-breadths], since one may tilt it and annul the private domain created by it, it implies that his eruv is a [valid] eruv and it is permitted to move it.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “If he deposited it in a tree more than ten hand-breadths high,” etc. It is an eruv but it is forbidden to move it; below three it is permitted. This is difficult. If his eruv is a [valid] eruv one should be permitted to move it. If one is forbidden to move it his eruv should not be a [valid] eruv. He might transgress the rabbinic prohibition and eat. Then also higher than ten [hand-breadths]? Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel, explain it if its stem was four [hand-breadths]. Rebbi Mana said, only if the public domain surrounds it on all sides; he says my Sabbath rest shall be below it. It was stated: If he put it in a basket and hung it on a tree, higher than ten hand-breadths high it is not an eruv; below ten hand-breadth it is an eruv but it is forbidden to move it; below three it is permitted. This is difficult. If his eruv is a [valid] eruv one should be permitted to move it. If one is forbidden to move it his eruv should not be a [valid] eruv. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ḥinena: He might turn it upside down and annul the private domain created by it. Rebbi Yose said, this implies that a bench in the public domain high ten and wide four [hand-breadths], since one may tilt it and annul the private domain created by it, it implies that his eruv is a [valid] eruv and it is permitted to move it.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “If he deposited it in a tree more than ten hand-breadths high,” etc. It is an eruv but it is forbidden to move it; below three it is permitted. This is difficult. If his eruv is a [valid] eruv one should be permitted to move it. If one is forbidden to move it his eruv should not be a [valid] eruv. He might transgress the rabbinic prohibition and eat. Then also higher than ten [hand-breadths]? Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel, explain it if its stem was four [hand-breadths]. Rebbi Mana said, only if the public domain surrounds it on all sides; he says my Sabbath rest shall be below it. It was stated: If he put it in a basket and hung it on a tree, higher than ten hand-breadths high it is not an eruv; below ten hand-breadth it is an eruv but it is forbidden to move it; below three it is permitted. This is difficult. If his eruv is a [valid] eruv one should be permitted to move it. If one is forbidden to move it his eruv should not be a [valid] eruv. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ḥinena: He might turn it upside down and annul the private domain created by it. Rebbi Yose said, this implies that a bench in the public domain high ten and wide four [hand-breadths], since one may tilt it and annul the private domain created by it, it implies that his eruv is a [valid] eruv and it is permitted to move it.

There, we have stated: “Two human-made and one a tree, or two as trees and one human-made is valid but one may not enter it on the holiday.” [Here you are saying it is valid but one may not enter it on the holiday] but there you are saying his eruv is a [valid] eruv and it is permitted to move it. Rebbi Jeremiah said, one on top, the other at the side. This learns from that and that learns from this. This learns from that, if there were two pegs protruding and he thatched over them it is valid and one uses it on the holiday. That learns from this, if he put it on a tree branch his eruv is a [valid] eruv and it is forbidden to move it. Rebbi Yose said, in both cases it is at the side. How is that? As Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: This is Rebbi Eleazar ben Simon’s, as Rebbi Eleazar ben Simon says, one is permitted to use the sides of an animal on the Sabbath. There is no difference between sides of an animal and sides of a tree.

There, we have stated: “Two human-made and one a tree, or two as trees and one human-made is valid but one may not enter it on the holiday.” [Here you are saying it is valid but one may not enter it on the holiday] but there you are saying his eruv is a [valid] eruv and it is permitted to move it. Rebbi Jeremiah said, one on top, the other at the side. This learns from that and that learns from this. This learns from that, if there were two pegs protruding and he thatched over them it is valid and one uses it on the holiday. That learns from this, if he put it on a tree branch his eruv is a [valid] eruv and it is forbidden to move it. Rebbi Yose said, in both cases it is at the side. How is that? As Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: This is Rebbi Eleazar ben Simon’s, as Rebbi Eleazar ben Simon says, one is permitted to use the sides of an animal on the Sabbath. There is no difference between sides of an animal and sides of a tree.

There, we have stated: “Two human-made and one a tree, or two as trees and one human-made is valid but one may not enter it on the holiday.” [Here you are saying it is valid but one may not enter it on the holiday] but there you are saying his eruv is a [valid] eruv and it is permitted to move it. Rebbi Jeremiah said, one on top, the other at the side. This learns from that and that learns from this. This learns from that, if there were two pegs protruding and he thatched over them it is valid and one uses it on the holiday. That learns from this, if he put it on a tree branch his eruv is a [valid] eruv and it is forbidden to move it. Rebbi Yose said, in both cases it is at the side. How is that? As Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: This is Rebbi Eleazar ben Simon’s, as Rebbi Eleazar ben Simon says, one is permitted to use the sides of an animal on the Sabbath. There is no difference between sides of an animal and sides of a tree.

There, we have stated: “Two human-made and one a tree, or two as trees and one human-made is valid but one may not enter it on the holiday.” [Here you are saying it is valid but one may not enter it on the holiday] but there you are saying his eruv is a [valid] eruv and it is permitted to move it. Rebbi Jeremiah said, one on top, the other at the side. This learns from that and that learns from this. This learns from that, if there were two pegs protruding and he thatched over them it is valid and one uses it on the holiday. That learns from this, if he put it on a tree branch his eruv is a [valid] eruv and it is forbidden to move it. Rebbi Yose said, in both cases it is at the side. How is that? As Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: This is Rebbi Eleazar ben Simon’s, as Rebbi Eleazar ben Simon says, one is permitted to use the sides of an animal on the Sabbath. There is no difference between sides of an animal and sides of a tree.

There, we have stated: “Two human-made and one a tree, or two as trees and one human-made is valid but one may not enter it on the holiday.” [Here you are saying it is valid but one may not enter it on the holiday] but there you are saying his eruv is a [valid] eruv and it is permitted to move it. Rebbi Jeremiah said, one on top, the other at the side. This learns from that and that learns from this. This learns from that, if there were two pegs protruding and he thatched over them it is valid and one uses it on the holiday. That learns from this, if he put it on a tree branch his eruv is a [valid] eruv and it is forbidden to move it. Rebbi Yose said, in both cases it is at the side. How is that? As Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: This is Rebbi Eleazar ben Simon’s, as Rebbi Eleazar ben Simon says, one is permitted to use the sides of an animal on the Sabbath. There is no difference between sides of an animal and sides of a tree.

There, we have stated: “Two human-made and one a tree, or two as trees and one human-made is valid but one may not enter it on the holiday.” [Here you are saying it is valid but one may not enter it on the holiday] but there you are saying his eruv is a [valid] eruv and it is permitted to move it. Rebbi Jeremiah said, one on top, the other at the side. This learns from that and that learns from this. This learns from that, if there were two pegs protruding and he thatched over them it is valid and one uses it on the holiday. That learns from this, if he put it on a tree branch his eruv is a [valid] eruv and it is forbidden to move it. Rebbi Yose said, in both cases it is at the side. How is that? As Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: This is Rebbi Eleazar ben Simon’s, as Rebbi Eleazar ben Simon says, one is permitted to use the sides of an animal on the Sabbath. There is no difference between sides of an animal and sides of a tree.

“If he put it on top of a stick or a pole as long as it was uprooted and inserted it is an eruv even if 100 cubits high.” Because it was uprooted and inserted; therefore if it was not uprooted and inserted his eruv is not a [valid]eruv. Does this not disagree with Samuel, as Rav Jehudah said in the name of Samuel, explain it if its stem was four [hand-breadths]? Rebbi Mana said, only if a table was put on its top.

It was stated: “Rebbi Eliezer says, if it was lost in the field his eruv is not a [valid] eruv; if it was lost in town his eruv is a [valid] eruv.” If it was lost in the field his eruv is not a [valid] eruv, for he cannot bring it in a Sabbath way. If it was lost in town his eruv is a [valid] eruv, for he can bring it through exempt space. Rebbi Eleazar said it correctly: what is the reason (of Rav) [of the rabbis]? Rebbi Abba the son of Rav Pappai said, it is Rebbi Meïr’s since Rebbi Meïr said, “he even originally reduces and takes.” Rebbi Meïr said this only for a holiday, maybe for the Sabbath? But here we are concerned with the Sabbath! Rebbi Abba Mari said, it is Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob’s, as we have stated there, “Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob said, one may tie in front of an animal that it should not leave.” There is no difference between tying and locking. That means, about a stone tower. But for a wooden tower he is like one who breaks the amphora to eat dried figs from it.

It was stated: “Rebbi Eliezer says, if it was lost in the field his eruv is not a [valid] eruv; if it was lost in town his eruv is a [valid] eruv.” If it was lost in the field his eruv is not a [valid] eruv, for he cannot bring it in a Sabbath way. If it was lost in town his eruv is a [valid] eruv, for he can bring it through exempt space. Rebbi Eleazar said it correctly: what is the reason (of Rav) [of the rabbis]? Rebbi Abba the son of Rav Pappai said, it is Rebbi Meïr’s since Rebbi Meïr said, “he even originally reduces and takes.” Rebbi Meïr said this only for a holiday, maybe for the Sabbath? But here we are concerned with the Sabbath! Rebbi Abba Mari said, it is Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob’s, as we have stated there, “Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob said, one may tie in front of an animal that it should not leave.” There is no difference between tying and locking. That means, about a stone tower. But for a wooden tower he is like one who breaks the amphora to eat dried figs from it.

It was stated: “Rebbi Eliezer says, if it was lost in the field his eruv is not a [valid] eruv; if it was lost in town his eruv is a [valid] eruv.” If it was lost in the field his eruv is not a [valid] eruv, for he cannot bring it in a Sabbath way. If it was lost in town his eruv is a [valid] eruv, for he can bring it through exempt space. Rebbi Eleazar said it correctly: what is the reason (of Rav) [of the rabbis]? Rebbi Abba the son of Rav Pappai said, it is Rebbi Meïr’s since Rebbi Meïr said, “he even originally reduces and takes.” Rebbi Meïr said this only for a holiday, maybe for the Sabbath? But here we are concerned with the Sabbath! Rebbi Abba Mari said, it is Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob’s, as we have stated there, “Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob said, one may tie in front of an animal that it should not leave.” There is no difference between tying and locking. That means, about a stone tower. But for a wooden tower he is like one who breaks the amphora to eat dried figs from it.

It was stated: “Rebbi Eliezer says, if it was lost in the field his eruv is not a [valid] eruv; if it was lost in town his eruv is a [valid] eruv.” If it was lost in the field his eruv is not a [valid] eruv, for he cannot bring it in a Sabbath way. If it was lost in town his eruv is a [valid] eruv, for he can bring it through exempt space. Rebbi Eleazar said it correctly: what is the reason (of Rav) [of the rabbis]? Rebbi Abba the son of Rav Pappai said, it is Rebbi Meïr’s since Rebbi Meïr said, “he even originally reduces and takes.” Rebbi Meïr said this only for a holiday, maybe for the Sabbath? But here we are concerned with the Sabbath! Rebbi Abba Mari said, it is Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob’s, as we have stated there, “Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob said, one may tie in front of an animal that it should not leave.” There is no difference between tying and locking. That means, about a stone tower. But for a wooden tower he is like one who breaks the amphora to eat dried figs from it.

It was stated: “Rebbi Eliezer says, if it was lost in the field his eruv is not a [valid] eruv; if it was lost in town his eruv is a [valid] eruv.” If it was lost in the field his eruv is not a [valid] eruv, for he cannot bring it in a Sabbath way. If it was lost in town his eruv is a [valid] eruv, for he can bring it through exempt space. Rebbi Eleazar said it correctly: what is the reason (of Rav) [of the rabbis]? Rebbi Abba the son of Rav Pappai said, it is Rebbi Meïr’s since Rebbi Meïr said, “he even originally reduces and takes.” Rebbi Meïr said this only for a holiday, maybe for the Sabbath? But here we are concerned with the Sabbath! Rebbi Abba Mari said, it is Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob’s, as we have stated there, “Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob said, one may tie in front of an animal that it should not leave.” There is no difference between tying and locking. That means, about a stone tower. But for a wooden tower he is like one who breaks the amphora to eat dried figs from it.

It was stated: “Rebbi Eliezer says, if it was lost in the field his eruv is not a [valid] eruv; if it was lost in town his eruv is a [valid] eruv.” If it was lost in the field his eruv is not a [valid] eruv, for he cannot bring it in a Sabbath way. If it was lost in town his eruv is a [valid] eruv, for he can bring it through exempt space. Rebbi Eleazar said it correctly: what is the reason (of Rav) [of the rabbis]? Rebbi Abba the son of Rav Pappai said, it is Rebbi Meïr’s since Rebbi Meïr said, “he even originally reduces and takes.” Rebbi Meïr said this only for a holiday, maybe for the Sabbath? But here we are concerned with the Sabbath! Rebbi Abba Mari said, it is Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob’s, as we have stated there, “Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob said, one may tie in front of an animal that it should not leave.” There is no difference between tying and locking. That means, about a stone tower. But for a wooden tower he is like one who breaks the amphora to eat dried figs from it.

It was stated: “Rebbi Eliezer says, if it was lost in the field his eruv is not a [valid] eruv; if it was lost in town his eruv is a [valid] eruv.” If it was lost in the field his eruv is not a [valid] eruv, for he cannot bring it in a Sabbath way. If it was lost in town his eruv is a [valid] eruv, for he can bring it through exempt space. Rebbi Eleazar said it correctly: what is the reason (of Rav) [of the rabbis]? Rebbi Abba the son of Rav Pappai said, it is Rebbi Meïr’s since Rebbi Meïr said, “he even originally reduces and takes.” Rebbi Meïr said this only for a holiday, maybe for the Sabbath? But here we are concerned with the Sabbath! Rebbi Abba Mari said, it is Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob’s, as we have stated there, “Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob said, one may tie in front of an animal that it should not leave.” There is no difference between tying and locking. That means, about a stone tower. But for a wooden tower he is like one who breaks the amphora to eat dried figs from it.

It was stated: “Rebbi Eliezer says, if it was lost in the field his eruv is not a [valid] eruv; if it was lost in town his eruv is a [valid] eruv.” If it was lost in the field his eruv is not a [valid] eruv, for he cannot bring it in a Sabbath way. If it was lost in town his eruv is a [valid] eruv, for he can bring it through exempt space. Rebbi Eleazar said it correctly: what is the reason (of Rav) [of the rabbis]? Rebbi Abba the son of Rav Pappai said, it is Rebbi Meïr’s since Rebbi Meïr said, “he even originally reduces and takes.” Rebbi Meïr said this only for a holiday, maybe for the Sabbath? But here we are concerned with the Sabbath! Rebbi Abba Mari said, it is Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob’s, as we have stated there, “Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob said, one may tie in front of an animal that it should not leave.” There is no difference between tying and locking. That means, about a stone tower. But for a wooden tower he is like one who breaks the amphora to eat dried figs from it.

It was stated: “Rebbi Eliezer says, if it was lost in the field his eruv is not a [valid] eruv; if it was lost in town his eruv is a [valid] eruv.” If it was lost in the field his eruv is not a [valid] eruv, for he cannot bring it in a Sabbath way. If it was lost in town his eruv is a [valid] eruv, for he can bring it through exempt space. Rebbi Eleazar said it correctly: what is the reason (of Rav) [of the rabbis]? Rebbi Abba the son of Rav Pappai said, it is Rebbi Meïr’s since Rebbi Meïr said, “he even originally reduces and takes.” Rebbi Meïr said this only for a holiday, maybe for the Sabbath? But here we are concerned with the Sabbath! Rebbi Abba Mari said, it is Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob’s, as we have stated there, “Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob said, one may tie in front of an animal that it should not leave.” There is no difference between tying and locking. That means, about a stone tower. But for a wooden tower he is like one who breaks the amphora to eat dried figs from it.

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 eruv. If it is a matter of uncertainty, Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Jehudah say, he is a donkey driver-camel driver. Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon say that in case of doubt an eruv is qualified. Rebbi Yose said, Autolas testified in the name of five Elders that in case of a doubt an eruv is qualified.

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 eruv. If it is a matter of uncertainty, Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Jehudah say, he is a donkey driver-camel driver. Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon say that in case of doubt an eruv is qualified. Rebbi Yose said, Autolas testified in the name of five Elders that in case of a doubt an eruv is qualified.

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 eruv. If it is a matter of uncertainty, Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Jehudah say, he is a donkey driver-camel driver. Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon say that in case of doubt an eruv is qualified. Rebbi Yose said, Autolas testified in the name of five Elders that in case of a doubt an eruv is qualified.

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 eruv. If it is a matter of uncertainty, Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Jehudah say, he is a donkey driver-camel driver. Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon say that in case of doubt an eruv is qualified. Rebbi Yose said, Autolas testified in the name of five Elders that in case of a doubt an eruv is qualified.

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 eruv. If it is a matter of uncertainty, Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Jehudah say, he is a donkey driver-camel driver. Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon say that in case of doubt an eruv is qualified. Rebbi Yose said, Autolas testified in the name of five Elders that in case of a doubt an eruv is qualified.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “If it rolled outside the Sabbath boundary,” etc. They said only “if it became impure.” 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 eruv. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: They followed the status quo ante.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “If it rolled outside the Sabbath boundary,” etc. They said only “if it became impure.” 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 eruv. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: They followed the status quo ante.

Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Jehudah objected to Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon: If it had been eaten when it still was daylight (could it be permitted?) [would it not be forbidden?] 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?] It remains in its prohibited state until it becomes known to you that it is permitted.

Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Jehudah objected to Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon: If it had been eaten when it still was daylight (could it be permitted?) [would it not be forbidden?] 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?] It remains in its prohibited state until it becomes known to you that it is permitted.

Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Jehudah objected to Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon: If it had been eaten when it still was daylight (could it be permitted?) [would it not be forbidden?] 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?] It remains in its prohibited state until it becomes known to you that it is permitted.

Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Jehudah objected to Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon: If it had been eaten when it still was daylight (could it be permitted?) [would it not be forbidden?] 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?] It remains in its prohibited state until it becomes known to you that it is permitted.

Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Jehudah objected to Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon: If it had been eaten when it still was daylight (could it be permitted?) [would it not be forbidden?] 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?] It remains in its prohibited state until it becomes known to you that it is permitted.

Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Jehudah objected to Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon: If it had been eaten when it still was daylight (could it be permitted?) [would it not be forbidden?] 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?] It remains in its prohibited state until it becomes known to you that it is permitted.

Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Jehudah objected to Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon: If it had been eaten when it still was daylight (could it be permitted?) [would it not be forbidden?] 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?] It remains in its prohibited state until it becomes known to you that it is permitted.

Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Jehudah objected to Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon: If it had been eaten when it still was daylight (could it be permitted?) [would it not be forbidden?] 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?] It remains in its prohibited state until it becomes known to you that it is permitted.

Does one give him the 2’000 [cubits] to his house? 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.

Does one give him the 2’000 [cubits] to his house? 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.

Does one give him the 2’000 [cubits] to his house? 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.

Does one give him the 2’000 [cubits] to his house? 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.

Does one give him the 2’000 [cubits] to his house? 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.

Does one give him the 2’000 [cubits] to his house? 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.

Does one give him the 2’000 [cubits] to his house? 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.

Does one give him the 2’000 [cubits] to his house? 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.

Does one give him the 2’000 [cubits] to his house? 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.

Does one give him the 2’000 [cubits] to his house? 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.

Does one give him the 2’000 [cubits] to his house? 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.

There, we have stated: “If there is a doubt, it is pure; Rebbi Yose declares it impure.” Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Yose declared it impure only because of proof. And Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Yose declares impure even (one place) [one miqweh]. The argument of Rebbi Yose seems inverted, as we have stated: “Rebbi Yose said, Autolas testified in the name of five Elders that in case of a doubt an eruv is qualified.” 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 permitted. Rebbi Ḥinena said, do they not only disagree about their words? And a doubt about their words is for leniency. But an eruv is a word of Torah; and a doubt about a word of the Torah is for restriction 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 Torah. Rebbi Ḥiyya the Elder said to him, but for Sabbath there is only stoning or extirpation? He said to him, is there not written, 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 written, 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 tradition. Rebbi Samuel bar Sosarta said, they treated eruv as a doubt involving a deaf-mute person. Rebbi Jeremiah asked, so far if it exists, or even if it was burned? Rebbi Yose said, I confirmed this following what Rebbi 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 clear. 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 Israel.

There, we have stated: “If there is a doubt, it is pure; Rebbi Yose declares it impure.” Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Yose declared it impure only because of proof. And Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Yose declares impure even (one place) [one miqweh]. The argument of Rebbi Yose seems inverted, as we have stated: “Rebbi Yose said, Autolas testified in the name of five Elders that in case of a doubt an eruv is qualified.” 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 permitted. Rebbi Ḥinena said, do they not only disagree about their words? And a doubt about their words is for leniency. But an eruv is a word of Torah; and a doubt about a word of the Torah is for restriction 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 Torah. Rebbi Ḥiyya the Elder said to him, but for Sabbath there is only stoning or extirpation? He said to him, is there not written, 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 written, 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 tradition. Rebbi Samuel bar Sosarta said, they treated eruv as a doubt involving a deaf-mute person. Rebbi Jeremiah asked, so far if it exists, or even if it was burned? Rebbi Yose said, I confirmed this following what Rebbi 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 clear. 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 Israel.

There, we have stated: “If there is a doubt, it is pure; Rebbi Yose declares it impure.” Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Yose declared it impure only because of proof. And Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Yose declares impure even (one place) [one miqweh]. The argument of Rebbi Yose seems inverted, as we have stated: “Rebbi Yose said, Autolas testified in the name of five Elders that in case of a doubt an eruv is qualified.” 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 permitted. Rebbi Ḥinena said, do they not only disagree about their words? And a doubt about their words is for leniency. But an eruv is a word of Torah; and a doubt about a word of the Torah is for restriction 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 Torah. Rebbi Ḥiyya the Elder said to him, but for Sabbath there is only stoning or extirpation? He said to him, is there not written, 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 written, 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 tradition. Rebbi Samuel bar Sosarta said, they treated eruv as a doubt involving a deaf-mute person. Rebbi Jeremiah asked, so far if it exists, or even if it was burned? Rebbi Yose said, I confirmed this following what Rebbi 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 clear. 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 Israel.

There, we have stated: “If there is a doubt, it is pure; Rebbi Yose declares it impure.” Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Yose declared it impure only because of proof. And Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Yose declares impure even (one place) [one miqweh]. The argument of Rebbi Yose seems inverted, as we have stated: “Rebbi Yose said, Autolas testified in the name of five Elders that in case of a doubt an eruv is qualified.” 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 permitted. Rebbi Ḥinena said, do they not only disagree about their words? And a doubt about their words is for leniency. But an eruv is a word of Torah; and a doubt about a word of the Torah is for restriction 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 Torah. Rebbi Ḥiyya the Elder said to him, but for Sabbath there is only stoning or extirpation? He said to him, is there not written, 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 written, 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 tradition. Rebbi Samuel bar Sosarta said, they treated eruv as a doubt involving a deaf-mute person. Rebbi Jeremiah asked, so far if it exists, or even if it was burned? Rebbi Yose said, I confirmed this following what Rebbi 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 clear. 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 Israel.

There, we have stated: “If there is a doubt, it is pure; Rebbi Yose declares it impure.” Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Yose declared it impure only because of proof. And Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Yose declares impure even (one place) [one miqweh]. The argument of Rebbi Yose seems inverted, as we have stated: “Rebbi Yose said, Autolas testified in the name of five Elders that in case of a doubt an eruv is qualified.” 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 permitted. Rebbi Ḥinena said, do they not only disagree about their words? And a doubt about their words is for leniency. But an eruv is a word of Torah; and a doubt about a word of the Torah is for restriction 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 Torah. Rebbi Ḥiyya the Elder said to him, but for Sabbath there is only stoning or extirpation? He said to him, is there not written, 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 written, 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 tradition. Rebbi Samuel bar Sosarta said, they treated eruv as a doubt involving a deaf-mute person. Rebbi Jeremiah asked, so far if it exists, or even if it was burned? Rebbi Yose said, I confirmed this following what Rebbi 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 clear. 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 Israel.

There, we have stated: “If there is a doubt, it is pure; Rebbi Yose declares it impure.” Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Yose declared it impure only because of proof. And Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Yose declares impure even (one place) [one miqweh]. The argument of Rebbi Yose seems inverted, as we have stated: “Rebbi Yose said, Autolas testified in the name of five Elders that in case of a doubt an eruv is qualified.” 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 permitted. Rebbi Ḥinena said, do they not only disagree about their words? And a doubt about their words is for leniency. But an eruv is a word of Torah; and a doubt about a word of the Torah is for restriction 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 Torah. Rebbi Ḥiyya the Elder said to him, but for Sabbath there is only stoning or extirpation? He said to him, is there not written, 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 written, 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 tradition. Rebbi Samuel bar Sosarta said, they treated eruv as a doubt involving a deaf-mute person. Rebbi Jeremiah asked, so far if it exists, or even if it was burned? Rebbi Yose said, I confirmed this following what Rebbi 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 clear. 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 Israel.

There, we have stated: “If there is a doubt, it is pure; Rebbi Yose declares it impure.” Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Yose declared it impure only because of proof. And Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Yose declares impure even (one place) [one miqweh]. The argument of Rebbi Yose seems inverted, as we have stated: “Rebbi Yose said, Autolas testified in the name of five Elders that in case of a doubt an eruv is qualified.” 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 permitted. Rebbi Ḥinena said, do they not only disagree about their words? And a doubt about their words is for leniency. But an eruv is a word of Torah; and a doubt about a word of the Torah is for restriction 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 Torah. Rebbi Ḥiyya the Elder said to him, but for Sabbath there is only stoning or extirpation? He said to him, is there not written, 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 written, 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 tradition. Rebbi Samuel bar Sosarta said, they treated eruv as a doubt involving a deaf-mute person. Rebbi Jeremiah asked, so far if it exists, or even if it was burned? Rebbi Yose said, I confirmed this following what Rebbi 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 clear. 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 Israel.

There, we have stated: “If there is a doubt, it is pure; Rebbi Yose declares it impure.” Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Yose declared it impure only because of proof. And Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Yose declares impure even (one place) [one miqweh]. The argument of Rebbi Yose seems inverted, as we have stated: “Rebbi Yose said, Autolas testified in the name of five Elders that in case of a doubt an eruv is qualified.” 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 permitted. Rebbi Ḥinena said, do they not only disagree about their words? And a doubt about their words is for leniency. But an eruv is a word of Torah; and a doubt about a word of the Torah is for restriction 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 Torah. Rebbi Ḥiyya the Elder said to him, but for Sabbath there is only stoning or extirpation? He said to him, is there not written, 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 written, 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 tradition. Rebbi Samuel bar Sosarta said, they treated eruv as a doubt involving a deaf-mute person. Rebbi Jeremiah asked, so far if it exists, or even if it was burned? Rebbi Yose said, I confirmed this following what Rebbi 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 clear. 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 Israel.

There, we have stated: “If there is a doubt, it is pure; Rebbi Yose declares it impure.” Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Yose declared it impure only because of proof. And Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Yose declares impure even (one place) [one miqweh]. The argument of Rebbi Yose seems inverted, as we have stated: “Rebbi Yose said, Autolas testified in the name of five Elders that in case of a doubt an eruv is qualified.” 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 permitted. Rebbi Ḥinena said, do they not only disagree about their words? And a doubt about their words is for leniency. But an eruv is a word of Torah; and a doubt about a word of the Torah is for restriction 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 Torah. Rebbi Ḥiyya the Elder said to him, but for Sabbath there is only stoning or extirpation? He said to him, is there not written, 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 written, 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 tradition. Rebbi Samuel bar Sosarta said, they treated eruv as a doubt involving a deaf-mute person. Rebbi Jeremiah asked, so far if it exists, or even if it was burned? Rebbi Yose said, I confirmed this following what Rebbi 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 clear. 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 Israel.

There, we have stated: “If there is a doubt, it is pure; Rebbi Yose declares it impure.” Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Yose declared it impure only because of proof. And Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Yose declares impure even (one place) [one miqweh]. The argument of Rebbi Yose seems inverted, as we have stated: “Rebbi Yose said, Autolas testified in the name of five Elders that in case of a doubt an eruv is qualified.” 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 permitted. Rebbi Ḥinena said, do they not only disagree about their words? And a doubt about their words is for leniency. But an eruv is a word of Torah; and a doubt about a word of the Torah is for restriction 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 Torah. Rebbi Ḥiyya the Elder said to him, but for Sabbath there is only stoning or extirpation? He said to him, is there not written, 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 written, 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 tradition. Rebbi Samuel bar Sosarta said, they treated eruv as a doubt involving a deaf-mute person. Rebbi Jeremiah asked, so far if it exists, or even if it was burned? Rebbi Yose said, I confirmed this following what Rebbi 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 clear. 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 Israel.

There, we have stated: “If there is a doubt, it is pure; Rebbi Yose declares it impure.” Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Yose declared it impure only because of proof. And Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Yose declares impure even (one place) [one miqweh]. The argument of Rebbi Yose seems inverted, as we have stated: “Rebbi Yose said, Autolas testified in the name of five Elders that in case of a doubt an eruv is qualified.” 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 permitted. Rebbi Ḥinena said, do they not only disagree about their words? And a doubt about their words is for leniency. But an eruv is a word of Torah; and a doubt about a word of the Torah is for restriction 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 Torah. Rebbi Ḥiyya the Elder said to him, but for Sabbath there is only stoning or extirpation? He said to him, is there not written, 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 written, 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 tradition. Rebbi Samuel bar Sosarta said, they treated eruv as a doubt involving a deaf-mute person. Rebbi Jeremiah asked, so far if it exists, or even if it was burned? Rebbi Yose said, I confirmed this following what Rebbi 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 clear. 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 Israel.

There, we have stated: “If there is a doubt, it is pure; Rebbi Yose declares it impure.” Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Yose declared it impure only because of proof. And Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Yose declares impure even (one place) [one miqweh]. The argument of Rebbi Yose seems inverted, as we have stated: “Rebbi Yose said, Autolas testified in the name of five Elders that in case of a doubt an eruv is qualified.” 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 permitted. Rebbi Ḥinena said, do they not only disagree about their words? And a doubt about their words is for leniency. But an eruv is a word of Torah; and a doubt about a word of the Torah is for restriction 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 Torah. Rebbi Ḥiyya the Elder said to him, but for Sabbath there is only stoning or extirpation? He said to him, is there not written, 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 written, 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 tradition. Rebbi Samuel bar Sosarta said, they treated eruv as a doubt involving a deaf-mute person. Rebbi Jeremiah asked, so far if it exists, or even if it was burned? Rebbi Yose said, I confirmed this following what Rebbi 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 clear. 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 Israel.

There, we have stated: “If there is a doubt, it is pure; Rebbi Yose declares it impure.” Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Yose declared it impure only because of proof. And Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Yose declares impure even (one place) [one miqweh]. The argument of Rebbi Yose seems inverted, as we have stated: “Rebbi Yose said, Autolas testified in the name of five Elders that in case of a doubt an eruv is qualified.” 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 permitted. Rebbi Ḥinena said, do they not only disagree about their words? And a doubt about their words is for leniency. But an eruv is a word of Torah; and a doubt about a word of the Torah is for restriction 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 Torah. Rebbi Ḥiyya the Elder said to him, but for Sabbath there is only stoning or extirpation? He said to him, is there not written, 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 written, 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 tradition. Rebbi Samuel bar Sosarta said, they treated eruv as a doubt involving a deaf-mute person. Rebbi Jeremiah asked, so far if it exists, or even if it was burned? Rebbi Yose said, I confirmed this following what Rebbi 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 clear. 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 Israel.

There, we have stated: “If there is a doubt, it is pure; Rebbi Yose declares it impure.” Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Yose declared it impure only because of proof. And Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Yose declares impure even (one place) [one miqweh]. The argument of Rebbi Yose seems inverted, as we have stated: “Rebbi Yose said, Autolas testified in the name of five Elders that in case of a doubt an eruv is qualified.” 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 permitted. Rebbi Ḥinena said, do they not only disagree about their words? And a doubt about their words is for leniency. But an eruv is a word of Torah; and a doubt about a word of the Torah is for restriction 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 Torah. Rebbi Ḥiyya the Elder said to him, but for Sabbath there is only stoning or extirpation? He said to him, is there not written, 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 written, 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 tradition. Rebbi Samuel bar Sosarta said, they treated eruv as a doubt involving a deaf-mute person. Rebbi Jeremiah asked, so far if it exists, or even if it was burned? Rebbi Yose said, I confirmed this following what Rebbi 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 clear. 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 Israel.

There, we have stated: “If there is a doubt, it is pure; Rebbi Yose declares it impure.” Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Yose declared it impure only because of proof. And Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Yose declares impure even (one place) [one miqweh]. The argument of Rebbi Yose seems inverted, as we have stated: “Rebbi Yose said, Autolas testified in the name of five Elders that in case of a doubt an eruv is qualified.” 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 permitted. Rebbi Ḥinena said, do they not only disagree about their words? And a doubt about their words is for leniency. But an eruv is a word of Torah; and a doubt about a word of the Torah is for restriction 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 Torah. Rebbi Ḥiyya the Elder said to him, but for Sabbath there is only stoning or extirpation? He said to him, is there not written, 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 written, 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 tradition. Rebbi Samuel bar Sosarta said, they treated eruv as a doubt involving a deaf-mute person. Rebbi Jeremiah asked, so far if it exists, or even if it was burned? Rebbi Yose said, I confirmed this following what Rebbi 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 clear. 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 Israel.

There, we have stated: “If there is a doubt, it is pure; Rebbi Yose declares it impure.” Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Yose declared it impure only because of proof. And Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Yose declares impure even (one place) [one miqweh]. The argument of Rebbi Yose seems inverted, as we have stated: “Rebbi Yose said, Autolas testified in the name of five Elders that in case of a doubt an eruv is qualified.” 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 permitted. Rebbi Ḥinena said, do they not only disagree about their words? And a doubt about their words is for leniency. But an eruv is a word of Torah; and a doubt about a word of the Torah is for restriction 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 Torah. Rebbi Ḥiyya the Elder said to him, but for Sabbath there is only stoning or extirpation? He said to him, is there not written, 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 written, 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 tradition. Rebbi Samuel bar Sosarta said, they treated eruv as a doubt involving a deaf-mute person. Rebbi Jeremiah asked, so far if it exists, or even if it was burned? Rebbi Yose said, I confirmed this following what Rebbi 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 clear. 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 Israel.

There, we have stated: “If there is a doubt, it is pure; Rebbi Yose declares it impure.” Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Yose declared it impure only because of proof. And Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Yose declares impure even (one place) [one miqweh]. The argument of Rebbi Yose seems inverted, as we have stated: “Rebbi Yose said, Autolas testified in the name of five Elders that in case of a doubt an eruv is qualified.” 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 permitted. Rebbi Ḥinena said, do they not only disagree about their words? And a doubt about their words is for leniency. But an eruv is a word of Torah; and a doubt about a word of the Torah is for restriction 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 Torah. Rebbi Ḥiyya the Elder said to him, but for Sabbath there is only stoning or extirpation? He said to him, is there not written, 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 written, 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 tradition. Rebbi Samuel bar Sosarta said, they treated eruv as a doubt involving a deaf-mute person. Rebbi Jeremiah asked, so far if it exists, or even if it was burned? Rebbi Yose said, I confirmed this following what Rebbi 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 clear. 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 Israel.

There, we have stated: “If there is a doubt, it is pure; Rebbi Yose declares it impure.” Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Yose declared it impure only because of proof. And Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Yose declares impure even (one place) [one miqweh]. The argument of Rebbi Yose seems inverted, as we have stated: “Rebbi Yose said, Autolas testified in the name of five Elders that in case of a doubt an eruv is qualified.” 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 permitted. Rebbi Ḥinena said, do they not only disagree about their words? And a doubt about their words is for leniency. But an eruv is a word of Torah; and a doubt about a word of the Torah is for restriction 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 Torah. Rebbi Ḥiyya the Elder said to him, but for Sabbath there is only stoning or extirpation? He said to him, is there not written, 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 written, 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 tradition. Rebbi Samuel bar Sosarta said, they treated eruv as a doubt involving a deaf-mute person. Rebbi Jeremiah asked, so far if it exists, or even if it was burned? Rebbi Yose said, I confirmed this following what Rebbi 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 clear. 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 Israel.

There, we have stated: “If there is a doubt, it is pure; Rebbi Yose declares it impure.” Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Yose declared it impure only because of proof. And Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Yose declares impure even (one place) [one miqweh]. The argument of Rebbi Yose seems inverted, as we have stated: “Rebbi Yose said, Autolas testified in the name of five Elders that in case of a doubt an eruv is qualified.” 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 permitted. Rebbi Ḥinena said, do they not only disagree about their words? And a doubt about their words is for leniency. But an eruv is a word of Torah; and a doubt about a word of the Torah is for restriction 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 Torah. Rebbi Ḥiyya the Elder said to him, but for Sabbath there is only stoning or extirpation? He said to him, is there not written, 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 written, 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 tradition. Rebbi Samuel bar Sosarta said, they treated eruv as a doubt involving a deaf-mute person. Rebbi Jeremiah asked, so far if it exists, or even if it was burned? Rebbi Yose said, I confirmed this following what Rebbi 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 clear. 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 Israel.

There, we have stated: “If there is a doubt, it is pure; Rebbi Yose declares it impure.” Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Yose declared it impure only because of proof. And Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Yose declares impure even (one place) [one miqweh]. The argument of Rebbi Yose seems inverted, as we have stated: “Rebbi Yose said, Autolas testified in the name of five Elders that in case of a doubt an eruv is qualified.” 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 permitted. Rebbi Ḥinena said, do they not only disagree about their words? And a doubt about their words is for leniency. But an eruv is a word of Torah; and a doubt about a word of the Torah is for restriction 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 Torah. Rebbi Ḥiyya the Elder said to him, but for Sabbath there is only stoning or extirpation? He said to him, is there not written, 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 written, 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 tradition. Rebbi Samuel bar Sosarta said, they treated eruv as a doubt involving a deaf-mute person. Rebbi Jeremiah asked, so far if it exists, or even if it was burned? Rebbi Yose said, I confirmed this following what Rebbi 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 clear. 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 Israel.

There, we have stated: “If there is a doubt, it is pure; Rebbi Yose declares it impure.” Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Yose declared it impure only because of proof. And Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Yose declares impure even (one place) [one miqweh]. The argument of Rebbi Yose seems inverted, as we have stated: “Rebbi Yose said, Autolas testified in the name of five Elders that in case of a doubt an eruv is qualified.” 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 permitted. Rebbi Ḥinena said, do they not only disagree about their words? And a doubt about their words is for leniency. But an eruv is a word of Torah; and a doubt about a word of the Torah is for restriction 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 Torah. Rebbi Ḥiyya the Elder said to him, but for Sabbath there is only stoning or extirpation? He said to him, is there not written, 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 written, 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 tradition. Rebbi Samuel bar Sosarta said, they treated eruv as a doubt involving a deaf-mute person. Rebbi Jeremiah asked, so far if it exists, or even if it was burned? Rebbi Yose said, I confirmed this following what Rebbi 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 clear. 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 Israel.

There, we have stated: “If there is a doubt, it is pure; Rebbi Yose declares it impure.” Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Yose declared it impure only because of proof. And Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Yose declares impure even (one place) [one miqweh]. The argument of Rebbi Yose seems inverted, as we have stated: “Rebbi Yose said, Autolas testified in the name of five Elders that in case of a doubt an eruv is qualified.” 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 permitted. Rebbi Ḥinena said, do they not only disagree about their words? And a doubt about their words is for leniency. But an eruv is a word of Torah; and a doubt about a word of the Torah is for restriction 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 Torah. Rebbi Ḥiyya the Elder said to him, but for Sabbath there is only stoning or extirpation? He said to him, is there not written, 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 written, 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 tradition. Rebbi Samuel bar Sosarta said, they treated eruv as a doubt involving a deaf-mute person. Rebbi Jeremiah asked, so far if it exists, or even if it was burned? Rebbi Yose said, I confirmed this following what Rebbi 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 clear. 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 Israel.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “A person may make his eruv conditional,” etc. So is the Mishnah: “A person can impose a condition on his ˋeruvin.” Rebbi Eleazar said, who is the Tanna of “if they came”, “if they did not come”? Rebbi Meïr! Which Rebbi Meïr? The colleagues say, Rebbi Meïr of Qiddušin. As it was stated: If somebody say to a woman: You are preliminarily married to me on condition that there will be rain. If rain fell, she is preliminarily married, otherwise she is not preliminarily married. Rebbi Meïr says, she is preliminarily married whether or not rain fell unless he doubled his condition. Everybody agrees that if he said, after rainfall, if it rained she is preliminarily married, otherwise she is not preliminarily married. (But following the rabbis she is preliminarily married whether rain fell or not.) Rebbi Yose said, it follows Rebbi Meïr in Eruvin, as we have stated there: “If it is a matter of uncertainty„ Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Jehudah say, he is a donkey driver-camel driver.” Rebbi Yose said, Rebbi Meïr said this only as a restriction. Rebbi Mana said, that is correct. He cannot acquire his ˋeruv since he is not able to enjoy it. [Why not] like the people of his place? If he had decided to leave his place. And here, she is not preliminarily married to the first, since no rain came. She is not preliminarily married to the second, since the first did not double his condition. Rebbi Ḥaggai asked before Rebbi Yose: Is this “if” not a reaction? He answered, there is a difference since the land was in their hand and he wanted to take it away from them.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “A person may make his eruv conditional,” etc. So is the Mishnah: “A person can impose a condition on his ˋeruvin.” Rebbi Eleazar said, who is the Tanna of “if they came”, “if they did not come”? Rebbi Meïr! Which Rebbi Meïr? The colleagues say, Rebbi Meïr of Qiddušin. As it was stated: If somebody say to a woman: You are preliminarily married to me on condition that there will be rain. If rain fell, she is preliminarily married, otherwise she is not preliminarily married. Rebbi Meïr says, she is preliminarily married whether or not rain fell unless he doubled his condition. Everybody agrees that if he said, after rainfall, if it rained she is preliminarily married, otherwise she is not preliminarily married. (But following the rabbis she is preliminarily married whether rain fell or not.) Rebbi Yose said, it follows Rebbi Meïr in Eruvin, as we have stated there: “If it is a matter of uncertainty„ Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Jehudah say, he is a donkey driver-camel driver.” Rebbi Yose said, Rebbi Meïr said this only as a restriction. Rebbi Mana said, that is correct. He cannot acquire his ˋeruv since he is not able to enjoy it. [Why not] like the people of his place? If he had decided to leave his place. And here, she is not preliminarily married to the first, since no rain came. She is not preliminarily married to the second, since the first did not double his condition. Rebbi Ḥaggai asked before Rebbi Yose: Is this “if” not a reaction? He answered, there is a difference since the land was in their hand and he wanted to take it away from them.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “A person may make his eruv conditional,” etc. So is the Mishnah: “A person can impose a condition on his ˋeruvin.” Rebbi Eleazar said, who is the Tanna of “if they came”, “if they did not come”? Rebbi Meïr! Which Rebbi Meïr? The colleagues say, Rebbi Meïr of Qiddušin. As it was stated: If somebody say to a woman: You are preliminarily married to me on condition that there will be rain. If rain fell, she is preliminarily married, otherwise she is not preliminarily married. Rebbi Meïr says, she is preliminarily married whether or not rain fell unless he doubled his condition. Everybody agrees that if he said, after rainfall, if it rained she is preliminarily married, otherwise she is not preliminarily married. (But following the rabbis she is preliminarily married whether rain fell or not.) Rebbi Yose said, it follows Rebbi Meïr in Eruvin, as we have stated there: “If it is a matter of uncertainty„ Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Jehudah say, he is a donkey driver-camel driver.” Rebbi Yose said, Rebbi Meïr said this only as a restriction. Rebbi Mana said, that is correct. He cannot acquire his ˋeruv since he is not able to enjoy it. [Why not] like the people of his place? If he had decided to leave his place. And here, she is not preliminarily married to the first, since no rain came. She is not preliminarily married to the second, since the first did not double his condition. Rebbi Ḥaggai asked before Rebbi Yose: Is this “if” not a reaction? He answered, there is a difference since the land was in their hand and he wanted to take it away from them.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “A person may make his eruv conditional,” etc. So is the Mishnah: “A person can impose a condition on his ˋeruvin.” Rebbi Eleazar said, who is the Tanna of “if they came”, “if they did not come”? Rebbi Meïr! Which Rebbi Meïr? The colleagues say, Rebbi Meïr of Qiddušin. As it was stated: If somebody say to a woman: You are preliminarily married to me on condition that there will be rain. If rain fell, she is preliminarily married, otherwise she is not preliminarily married. Rebbi Meïr says, she is preliminarily married whether or not rain fell unless he doubled his condition. Everybody agrees that if he said, after rainfall, if it rained she is preliminarily married, otherwise she is not preliminarily married. (But following the rabbis she is preliminarily married whether rain fell or not.) Rebbi Yose said, it follows Rebbi Meïr in Eruvin, as we have stated there: “If it is a matter of uncertainty„ Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Jehudah say, he is a donkey driver-camel driver.” Rebbi Yose said, Rebbi Meïr said this only as a restriction. Rebbi Mana said, that is correct. He cannot acquire his ˋeruv since he is not able to enjoy it. [Why not] like the people of his place? If he had decided to leave his place. And here, she is not preliminarily married to the first, since no rain came. She is not preliminarily married to the second, since the first did not double his condition. Rebbi Ḥaggai asked before Rebbi Yose: Is this “if” not a reaction? He answered, there is a difference since the land was in their hand and he wanted to take it away from them.