הרי זה חמר גמל
This person is in the position of both a donkey driver, who must prod the animal from behind, and a camel driver, who must lead the animal from the front, i. e., he is pulled in two opposing directions. Since we are unsure whether the two days constitute one sanctity or two, he must act stringently as though the eiruv established for the first day is both effective and not effective for the second day, i. e., he must restrict his Shabbat movement to those areas where he would be permitted to go in both cases.
Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, say: If he established an eiruv with his feet on the eve of the first day, he need not establish an eiruv with his feet on the eve of the second day, as his eiruv remains effective for the second day as well. Similarly, if he had made an eiruv by depositing food in the place where he wished to establish his residence, and his eiruv was eaten on the first day, he may still rely on it and go out beyond the limit permitted to the rest of the inhabitants of the town on the second day, as the two days constitute one sanctity; from the outset, the eiruv acquired his place of rest for both days.
אמר רב הלכה כארבעה זקנים הללו ואליבא דרבי אליעזר דאמר שתי קדושות הן ואלו הן ארבעה זקנים רבן שמעון בן גמליאל ורבי ישמעאל ברבי יוחנן בן ברוקה ורבי אליעזר ברבי שמעון ורבי יוסי בר יהודה סתימתאה ואיכא דאמרי חד מינייהו רבי אלעזר ומפיק רבי יוסי בר יהודה סתימתאה
Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of these four Elders and in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who said: When Shabbat and a Festival occur on consecutive days, they constitute two distinct sanctities. And these are the four Elders: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel; Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka; Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Shimon; and Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda, the one whose opinions were often recorded as unattributed mishnayot. And there are those who say: One of them is Rabbi Elazar, and remove from the list Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda, the one whose statements were often recorded as unattributed mishnayot.
The Gemara raises a difficulty: Didn’t we hear that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, maintain the opposite opinion in the baraita cited above, namely that the two days constitute a single sanctity? The Gemara answers: Reverse the attributions in the baraita.
The Gemara asks: If so, this is exactly what Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said. What is their dispute? The Gemara answers: Say that there is no disagreement between them, and the baraita should read as follows: And so too, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said that he agrees with what was stated above.
The Gemara now asks: Let us also count Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi among these Elders, as he too holds that the two days are distinct sanctities. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi taught this opinion, and he himself did not hold it to be correct. He transmitted a ruling that he received from his teachers, but his own opinion was otherwise.
The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, let us also say that the Rabbis, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, and Rabbi Yishmael also taught this law, and they themselves did not hold it to be correct. What proof is there that this represents their own opinions? The Gemara answers: Rav did not rely on the wording of these sources; rather, he learned by way of a definite tradition that these four Elders maintained this position.
The Gemara relates that when Rav Huna, Rav’s preeminent student, passed away, Rav Ḥisda entered the study hall to raise a contradiction between one statement of Rav and another statement of Rav: Did Rav actually say: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the four Elders and in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who said that when Shabbat and a Festival fall out on consecutive days, they constitute two distinct sanctities?
והא איתמר שבת ויום טוב רב אמר נולדה בזה אסורה בזה
Wasn’t it stated that with regard to a case where Shabbat and a Festival occur on consecutive days, Rav said: An egg that was laid on one is prohibited on the other, just as an egg that was laid on a Festival day is prohibited on that same day? This statement indicates that the two days constitute a single sanctity. How, then, can he say here that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion that they are two distinct sanctities?
אמר רבה התם משום הכנה
Rabba said that a distinction may be drawn between the cases: There, the egg is prohibited on the second day not because the two days constitute a single sanctity but because of the prohibition against preparation, i. e., because it is prohibited to prepare things on a Festival for Shabbat or on Shabbat for a Festival.
דתניא והיה ביום הששי והכינו חול מכין לשבת וחול מכין ליום טוב ואין יום טוב מכין לשבת ואין שבת מכינה ליום טוב
As it was taught in a baraita:
The verse that states:“ And it shall come to pass, on the sixth day, when they shall prepare that which they bring in” (Exodus 16:5), indicates as follows: On an ordinary weekday one may prepare what is needed for Shabbat, and similarly, on an ordinary weekday one may prepare what is needed for a Festival. However, on a Festival one may not prepare for Shabbat, and on Shabbat one may not prepare for a Festival. Therefore, an egg that was laid on a Festival is prohibited on Shabbat not because they constitute a single sanctity, but because it is prohibited to prepare on one sanctified day for another.
אמר ליה אביי אלא הא דתנן כיצד הוא עושה מוליכו בראשון ומחשיך עליו ונוטלו ובא לו בשני מחשיך עליו ואוכלו ובא לו הא קא מכין מיום טוב לשבת
Abaye said to him: But what about that which we learned in the mishna: What does he do if a Festival occurs on Friday, and he wishes to establish an eiruv that will be valid for the Festival and Shabbat? He or his agent takes the eiruv to the spot that he wishes to establish as his residence on the eve of the first day, and he stays there with it until nightfall, and then he takes it with him and goes away. On the eve of the second day, i. e., on Friday afternoon, he or his agent takes the eiruv back to the same place and stays there with it until nightfall, and then he may eat the eiruv and go away, if he so desires. Isn’t he preparing on a Festival for Shabbat? According to Rabba, this should be considered a prohibited act of preparation.
אמר ליה רבה מי סברת סוף היום קונה עירוב תחלת היום קונה עירוב ושבת מכינה לעצמה
Rabba said to him: Do you think that the eiruv acquires one’s residence at the end of the day, i. e., at the last moment of Shabbat eve, which in this case is a Festival, so that this would involve prohibited preparation? The eiruv acquires his residence at the beginning of the day, i. e., at the first moment of Shabbat, which means that no preparations were made for Shabbat on the Festival, and on Shabbat one may prepare for Shabbat itself.
אלא מעתה יערבו בלגין
Abaye asked: But if that is so, one should be able to establish an eiruv with flasks of wine that were filled from a barrel of first-tithe that was still tevel with respect to teruma of the tithe, and with regard to which one said: Let this wine in the flask be teruma of the tithe for the wine in the barrel only after nightfall. If you say that an eiruv acquires one’s residence at the beginning of the day, why was it determined that one may not establish an eiruv with such wine?
בעינן סעודה הראויה מבעוד יום וליכא
The Gemara answers: In that case the eiruv is not valid for a different reason: We require a meal that is fit to be eaten while it is still day, and there is none, as the wine in the flask remains tevel and therefore unfit for drinking until nightfall.
Abaye asked further: But what about that which we learned in a mishna: Rabbi Eliezer says: If a Festival is adjacent to Shabbat, whether before it or after it, a person may establish two eiruvin. Why are these eiruvin valid? Don’t we require a meal that is fit to be eaten while it is still day, and there is none? Since one established his eiruv in one direction for the first day, he can only travel within a two-thousand-cubit radius of that location. Therefore, if he established his eiruv for the second day in the opposite direction, he cannot access that eiruv during the first day.
מי סברת דמנח ליה בסוף אלפים אמה לכאן ובסוף אלפים אמה לכאן לא דמנח ליה בסוף אלף אמה לכאן ובסוף אלף אמה לכאן
The Gemara responds: Do you think that we are dealing with a case where he placed one eiruv in the furthest possible spot at the end of two thousand cubits in this direction, and he placed the other eiruv in the furthest possible spot at the end of two thousand cubits in that direction, and he is therefore unable to go from one to the other on one day? No, the case is that he placed one eiruv at the end of one thousand cubits in the this direction, and he placed the other eiruv at the end of one thousand cubits in that direction, so that even after acquiring his residence on one side of the town by means of the first eiruv, he can still go to the spot where he left the other eiruv for the second day.
אלא הא דאמר רב יהודה עירב ברגליו יום ראשון מערב ברגליו יום שני עירב בפת ביום ראשון מערב בפת ביום שני הא קא מכין מיום טוב לשבת
Abaye raised yet another difficulty: But what about that which Rav Yehuda said: If one established an eiruv with his feet for the first day, he may establish an eiruv with his feet for the second day; and if he established an eiruv with bread on the first day, he may establish an eiruv with bread on the second day? Isn’t he preparing from a Festival to Shabbat?
אמר ליה מי סברת דאזיל ואמר מידי דאזיל ושתיק ויתיב
Rabba said to him: Do you think that one must go and say something at the site of the eiruv, therefore performing an act of preparation? He goes, and is silent, and sits there, and he automatically acquires his residence without having to say or do anything. This does not fall into the category of prohibited preparation.
כמאן כרבי יוחנן בן נורי דאמר חפצי הפקר קונין שביתה
Abaye asked: In accordance with whose opinion do you say that nothing must be said when establishing an eiruv teḥumin? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri, who said: A sleeping person acquires a Shabbat residence in the spot where he is sleeping. Even though he is comparable to ownerless property, ownerless property itself acquires a Shabbat residence and has its own Shabbat boundary, and there is no need for a person to establish a residence for it in a particular spot.
Rabba replied: Even if you say that my statement is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri only with regard to a sleeping person, who cannot say anything, as he is asleep. Consequently, he cannot acquire a Shabbat residence. However, with regard to one who is awake, since if he wanted to speak he could speak, even though he did not say that he is acquiring his Shabbat residence, he is considered as one who did say that statement.
Rabba bar Rav Ḥanin said to Abaye: If the Master, Rabba, had heard that which was taught in the following baraita: A person may not walk to the end of his field on Shabbat to determine what work and repair it requires, which will be done after Shabbat. Similarly,