Yerushalmi Eruvin 3:5 ירושלמי עירובין ג׳:ה׳

MISHNAH: A person may make his eruv conditional and say, if Gentiles come from the East my eruv shall be in the West, but if they come from the West my eruv shall be in the East, if they come from both sides I shall be able to go where I want, if they come from neither side I shall be like the people of my village¹⁹He can make two eruve teḥumim, deposit each one at an appropriate place and determine on Sabbath morning which one to use. While we do not accept retroactive determinations for biblical commandments, they are acceptable for rabbinic institutions..

HALAKHAH: ¹³⁷This paragraph and the next are from Qiddušin 3:3, explained there in Notes 116–131. It is clear that the text here is a copy from there since in the text “here” refers to Qiddušin and the discussion between R. Ḥaggai and R. Yose at the end of the paragraph has absolutely nothing to do with the Mishnah in Eruvin but asks why the conditional distribution of land to the tribes of Gad and Reuben (Num. 32:29–30) required a double condition, both positive and negative; this is relevant only for Qiddušin. Similarly the next paragraph has no connection with the topics of Eruvin. 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.)^138ATo be deleted with G and Qiddušin. 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.

¹³⁹Qiddušin 3:3, Notes 133–136. Rebbi Jehudah ben Shalom, Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazy in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan. They formulated the symphon^139AGreek συμφώνημα, -ατος, τό, “agreement”; cf. Qiddušin 3:2, Note 69 for details and legal standing of this marriage contract. according to Rebbi Meïr in Qiddušin. Rebbi Jeremiah: Rebbi Ḥananiah, the colleague of the rabbis, asked: Why does it have to follow Rebbi Meïr but not also the rabbis? Did not Rebbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The following is the contract text: “I, X son of Y, contract a preliminary marriage with you, Z, daughter of U, on condition that I shall give you property A and definitively marry you by day B. If that day should pass without me having taken you in, I shall have no claim on you.” Why can he not say “on condition” but not double his stipulation? If he did not double his stipulation, could this eliminate the preliminary marriage? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, everywhere Rebbi Meïr holds that from “no” you infer “yes”, except here? Rebbi Mattaniah said, one is more restrictive in matters of incest and adultery.

If he did not stipulate? Let us hear from the following¹⁴⁰Tosephta 3:4; Babli 50b; Beṣah 37b. Somebody made two different eruvim for the same Sabbath or holiday thinking that he would be able to use both of them.: “If somebody made eruvim for two domains he can go to the South according to his eruv in the North, to the North according to his eruv in the South. If he split the domain¹⁴¹If the two domains intersect only at one point he cannot move from that point. he may not move from his place.” An animal belonging to two partners one of which made an eruv in the North and the other in the South. It may walk to the South according to the eruv of the one in the North and to the North according to the eruv of the one in the South. If they split the domain it may not move from its place. If they slaughtered it¹⁴²On a holiday when slaughter is permitted. Babli Beṣah 37b.. Rav said, limbs suck from one another. Ulla bar Ismael said, limbs do not suck from one another¹⁴³According to Rav the partners can move the parts only in the common domain; according to Ulla bar Ismael each owner may move his part anywhere in his domain.. Rav agrees about an amphora that it was his part from before¹⁴⁴Since it was determined that eruv is a rabbinic institution one accepts that a later distribution retroactively determines property rights. By biblical standards retroactivity is excluded..

So is the Mishnah: If Gentiles come from both sides, if Gentiles do not come from either side¹⁴⁵For לא באו one has to read אם לא באו.. “If Gentiles come from the East my eruv shall be in the West.” Some Tannaim state, to the East¹⁴⁶If the Gentiles come to the East, his eruv shall be to the East. Why should he want to go to the East?. He who says to the East, about these officers¹⁴⁸Greek ταξεώτης, -ου ὁ, “officer of a magistrate, member of militia palatina”, whom it is important to humor., he who says to the West, about these Romans¹⁴⁹Common soldiers, notoriously badly disciplined in the later Empire..