Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

September 19, 2020 | 讗壮 讘转砖专讬 转砖驻状讗

Masechet Eruvin is sponsored by Adina and Eric Hagege in honor of our parents, Rabbi Dov and Elayne Greenstone and Roger and Ketty Hagege who raised children, grandchildren and great grandchildren committed to Torah learning.

  • This month is sponsored by Esther Kremer in loving memory of her father, Manny Gross z'l, on his 1st yahrzeit

Eruvin 41

This is Shabbat’s Daf. For Friday’s daf, please click here. For Thursday’s daf, please click here.

Today’s daf is dedicated anonymously in honor of our fearless leader and teacher Rabbanit Michelle Farber for her constant encouragement of our learning especially in the middle of Eruvin from all the women you inspire to learn daf yomi. Thank you!!

If Tisha B’av falls on erev Shabbat, does one finish fasting or does one eat before Shabbat starts so as not to enter Shabbat fasting? Two opinions are brought – one by Rabban Gamliel and one by Rabbi Yosi. Several tannaitic sources are brought to better understand the debate and see which position we hold by. If one leaves the techum on Shabbat, one can only walk within 4 cubits of where one is presently standing. Does it make a difference if the person left on their own or was removed by someone or something else? If one needs to go to the bathroom, does respect for one’s body override laws of techum Shabbat? The gemara explains that there are three things that make people do things against their will and against that of God. What are they?

讜讻谉 注专讘 转砖注讛 讘讗讘 砖讞诇 诇讛讬讜转 讘砖讘转 讗讜讻诇 讜砖讜转讛 讻诇 爪专讻讜 讜诪注诇讛 注诇 砖讜诇讞谞讜 讗驻讬诇讜 讻住注讜讚转 砖诇诪讛 讘砖注转讜 讞诇 诇讛讬讜转 转砖注讛 讘讗讘 讘注专讘 砖讘转 诪讘讬讗讬谉 诇讜 讻讘讬爪讛 讜讗讜讻诇 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 讬讻谞住 诇砖讘转 讻砖讛讜讗 诪注讜谞讛


and so too, on the eve of the Ninth of Av that occurs on Shabbat, one need not reduce the amount of food he eats; rather, he may eat and drink as much as he requires and bring to his table a meal even like that of King Solomon in his time. If the Ninth of Av occurs on Shabbat eve, we bring him an egg-bulk of food toward end of the day, and he eats it, so that he not enter Shabbat in a state of affliction.


转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 驻注诐 讗讞转 讛讬讬谞讜 讬讜砖讘讬谉 诇驻谞讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜转砖注讛 讘讗讘 砖讞诇 诇讛讬讜转 讘注专讘 砖讘转 讛讬讛 讜讛讘讬讗讜 诇讜 讘讬爪讛 诪讙讜诇讙诇转 讜讙诪注讛 讘诇讗 诪诇讞 讜诇讗 砖讛讬讛 转讗讘 诇讛 讗诇讗 诇讛专讗讜转 诇转诇诪讬讚讬诐 讛诇讻讛


It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda said: We were once sitting before Rabbi Akiva, and it was the Ninth of Av that occurs on Shabbat eve, and they brought him a slightly cooked egg, and he swallowed it without salt. And it was not that he desired it so much that he ate it; rather, he did so to show the students the halakha that one need not complete the fast when the Ninth of Av occurs on Shabbat eve, so as not enter Shabbat in a state of affliction.


讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 诪转注谞讛 讜诪砖诇讬诐 讗诪专 诇讛谉 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讬 讗转诐 诪讜讚讬诐 诇讬 讘转砖注讛 讘讗讘 砖讞诇 诇讛讬讜转 讘讗讞讚 讘砖讘转 砖诪驻住讬拽 诪讘注讜讚 讬讜诐 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讗讘诇 讗诪专 诇讛诐 诪讛 诇讬 诇讬讻谞住 讘讛 讻砖讛讜讗 诪注讜谞讛 诪讛 诇讬 诇爪讗转 诪诪谞讛 讻砖讛讜讗 诪注讜谞讛


And Rabbi Yosei says: He must fast and complete the fast. Rabbi Yosei said to the other Sages: Don鈥檛 you agree with me with regard to the Ninth of Av that occurs on Sunday, that one must stop eating on Shabbat while it is still day? They said to him: Indeed, we agree. Rabbi Yosei said to them: What is the difference to me between entering Shabbat in a state of affliction and leaving it in a state of affliction? If one stops eating before Shabbat is over, he is spending part of Shabbat fasting, and yet even the Sages concede that one must do so.


讗诪专讜 诇讜 讗诐 讗诪专转 诇爪讗转 诪诪谞讛 砖讛专讬 讗讻诇 讜砖转讛 讻诇 讛讬讜诐 讻讜诇讜 转讗诪专 诇讬讻谞住 讘讛 讻砖讛讜讗 诪注讜谞讛 砖诇讗 讗讻诇 讜砖转讛 讻诇 讛讬讜诐 讻讜诇讜


They said to him: There is a difference. If you said that one may leave Shabbat in a state of affliction, that is because he ate and drank the entire day and will not suffer if he fasts a few minutes at the end of the day. Can you say that it is the same to enter Shabbat in a state of affliction, when he has not eaten or drunk anything the entire day?


讜讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜诪讬 注讘讚讬谞谉 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜专诪讬谞讛讬 讗讬谉 讙讜讝专讬谉 转注谞讬转 注诇 讛爪讬讘讜专 讘专讗砖讬 讞讚砖讬诐 讘讞谞讜讻讛 讜讘驻讜专讬诐 讜讗诐 讛转讞讬诇讜 讗讬谉 诪驻住讬拽讬谉 讚讘专讬 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗诪专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗诪专 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讬谉 诪驻住讬拽讬谉 诪讜讚讛 讛讬讛 砖讗讬谉 诪砖诇讬诪讬谉 讜讻谉 讘转砖注讛 讘讗讘 砖讞诇 诇讛讬讜转 讘注专讘 砖讘转


And Ulla said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, and on the Ninth of Av that occurs on Shabbat eve one must complete the fast. The Gemara poses a question: Do we really act in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei? And the Gemara raises a contradiction based upon the following mishna: We do not initially decree a fast upon the public on the New Moon, Hanukkah, or Purim, and if the community had already begun a cycle of fasts and one of them fell out on one of these days, they do not interrupt the series; this is the statement of Rabban Gamliel. Rabbi Meir said: Even though Rabban Gamliel said that they do not interrupt the series, he conceded that they do not complete the fast on one of these days, and so too, the fast on the Ninth of Av that occurs on Shabbat eve is not completed.


讜转谞讬讗 诇讗讞专 驻讟讬专转讜 砖诇 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 谞讻谞住 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 诇讛驻专 讗转 讚讘专讬讜 注诪讚 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 注诇 专讙诇讬讜 讜讗诪专 讞讝讬 讗谞讗 讚讘转专 专讬砖讗 讙讜驻讗 讗讝讬诇 讻诇 讬诪讬讜 砖诇 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 拽讘注谞讜 讛诇讻讛 讻诪讜转讜 注讻砖讬讜 讗转讛 诪讘拽砖 诇讘讟诇 讚讘专讬讜 讬讛讜砖注 讗讬谉 砖讜诪注讬谉 诇讱 砖讻讘专 谞拽讘注讛 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜诇讗 讛讬讛 讗讚诐 砖注专注专 讘讚讘专 讻诇讜诐


And it was taught in a related baraita: Following the death of Rabban Gamliel, Rabbi Yehoshua entered the study hall to annul Rabban Gamliel鈥檚 statement with regard to fasts. Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri stood on his feet and said: I see that the appropriate policy is that the body must follow the head, i.e., we must follow the statements of the earlier authorities and not deviate from established halakha. All of Rabban Gamliel鈥檚 life we established the halakha in accordance with his opinion, and now you seek to annul his statement? Yehoshua, we do not listen to you, as the halakha has already been established in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Gamliel. And there was no one who disputed this statement in any way. Therefore, this baraita demonstrates that when the Ninth of Av occurs on Shabbat eve, one must observe the fast but not complete it, and this was the accepted practice.


讘讚讜专讜 砖诇 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 注讘讜讚 讻专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讘讚讜专讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 注讘讜讚 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬


The Gemara resolves the difficulty, arguing that this proof is not conclusive: Indeed, in the generation of Rabban Gamliel they acted in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Gamliel, but in the generation of Rabbi Yosei they acted in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, and from then on, the halakha follows his view.


讜讘讚讜专讜 砖诇 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 注讘讜讚 讻专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜讛转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 (讘谉) 爪讚讜拽 讗谞讬 (讛讬讬转讬) 诪讘谞讬 住谞讗讘 讘谉 讘谞讬诪讬谉 驻注诐 讗讞转 讞诇 转砖注讛 讘讗讘 诇讛讬讜转 讘砖讘转 讜讚讞讬谞讜讛讜 诇讗讞专 讛砖讘转 讜讛转注谞讬谞讜 讘讜 讜诇讗 讛砖诇诪谞讜讛讜 诪驻谞讬 砖讬讜诐 讟讜讘 砖诇谞讜 讛讬讛 讟注诪讗 讚讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讛讗 注专讘 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诪砖诇讬诪讬谉


The Gemara asks: And is it correct that in the generation of Rabban Gamliel they acted in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Gamliel? Wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Elazar ben Tzadok, a contemporary of Rabban Gamliel, said: I am a descendant of Sena鈥檃v ben Binyamin, who observed a family festival on the tenth of Av. One time, the Ninth of Av occurred on Shabbat, and we postponed it until after Shabbat, as we do not observe the fast on Shabbat, and we fasted on Sunday but did not complete the fast because that day was our Festival. This indicates that the reason they did not complete the fast is that the day itself was a Festival for them, but on the eve of a Festival, they would indeed complete it. This proves that even in the generation of Rabban Gamliel, they did complete fasts on the eve of Shabbat and Festivals.


讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 砖讗谞讬 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 砖诇 讚讘专讬讛诐 诪转讜讱 砖诪转注谞讬谉 讘讜 砖注讜转 诪砖诇讬诪讬谉 讘讜 注专讘讬讜转 砖讘转 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讬谉 诪转注谞讬谉 讘讛 砖注讜转 讗讬谉 诪砖诇讬诪讬谉 讘讛 注专讘讬讜转


Ravina said that this story poses no difficulty: A rabbinic Festival is different, as they are not as stringent as Shabbat or Festivals stated in the Torah, and the festival of the family of Sena鈥檃v was not a Festival from the Torah, but one established by the Sages. Since one may fast on such a Festival for a number of hours, i.e., one may fast on it for part of the day, one also completes a fast observed on the eve of such a Festival until the evening. With regard to Shabbat, however, since one may not fast on it even for several hours, one does not complete a fast observed on Shabbat eve.


讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诇讗 砖诪讬注 诇讬 讛讗 砖诪注转讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗转 讗诪专转 谞讬讛诇谉 讜讗讛讗 讗诪专转 谞讬讛诇谉 讗讬谉 讙讜讝专讬谉 转注谞讬转 注诇 讛爪讘讜专 讘专讗砖讬 讞讚砖讬诐 讜讻讜壮 讜讗诪专讬谞谉 注诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讝讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 砖讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讘诇 讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪转注谞讛 讜诪砖诇讬诐


Rav Yosef said: I did not hear this ruling that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. Rav Yosef had fallen ill and forgotten his learning and so was unable to remember that such a ruling had been issued. His student, Abaye, said to him: You yourself told us this halakha, and it was with regard to this point that you told it to us, as we learned in a mishna: We do not initially decree a fast upon the public on the New Moon, on Hanukkah, or on Purim. Rabbi Meir said: Even though Rabban Gamliel said that if the community had already begun a cycle of fasts, they do not interrupt the series, he conceded that they do not complete the fast on one of these days, and similarly, the fast of the Ninth of Av that occurs on Shabbat eve is not completed. And we said with regard to this mishna that Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: This is the statement that Rabbi Meir said in the name of Rabban Gamliel. But the Rabbis say: One must fast and complete the fast.


诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讗讻讜诇讛讜 诇讗 讗讞谞讜讻讛 讜驻讜专讬诐


What? Does the Rabbis鈥 ruling that one must complete the fast not refer to all the cases mentioned in the mishna, including that of the Ninth of Av that occurs on Shabbat eve? No, it was stated only with regard to Hanukkah and Purim, but one would not complete a fast on Shabbat eve.


讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗


The Gemara comments: So too, it is reasonable to explain that this ruling does not apply to Shabbat eve,


讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗讻讜诇讛讜 讛讗 讘注讬 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讛 诪专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讜诇讗 驻砖讟 诇讬讛


as, if it should enter your mind to say that Rav Yehuda said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis with regard to all the cases in the mishna, including that of the Ninth of Av that occurs on Shabbat eve, there is a difficulty: Didn鈥檛 Rabba raise a dilemma before Rav Yehuda with regard to this issue, and he did not answer him? This demonstrates that he did not have a decisive ruling on this subject.


讜诇讟注诪讬讱 讛讗 讚讚专砖 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛诇讻讛 诪转注谞讛 讜诪砖诇讬诐 讛讗 讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讛 诪专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜诇讗 驻砖讟 诇讬讛


The Gemara responds: And according to your opinion, that the issue had not been resolved, there is a difficulty with that which Mar Zutra expounded in the name of Rav Huna: The halakha is that one fasts and completes the fast on Shabbat eve. Didn鈥檛 Rabba also raise this dilemma before Rav Huna, and he too did not answer him? How could Mar Zutra have reported this halakhic ruling in the name of Rav Huna?


讗诇讗 讛讗 诪拽诪讬 讚砖诪注讛 讜讛讗 诇讘转专 讚砖诪注讛 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讛讗 诪拽诪讬 讚砖诪注讛 讛讗 诇讘转专 讚砖诪注讛


Rather, you must say that this dilemma that Rabba raised to Rav Huna was before Rav Huna heard Rav鈥檚 ruling on the subject; whereas this, i.e., Rav Huna鈥檚 statement as cited by Mar Zutra, was made after he heard Rav鈥檚 ruling on the matter, and the problem was resolved for him. Here, too, with regard to Rav Yehuda, we can say that this dilemma that Rabba raised before Rav Yehuda was before Rav Yehuda heard Rav鈥檚 ruling on the topic, and therefore he did not know how to answer Rabba; whereas this, i.e., Rav Yehuda鈥檚 statement in the name of Rav, was made after he heard it.


讚专砖 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛诇讻讛 诪转注谞讬谉 讜诪砖诇讬诪讬谉:


The Gemara repeats the statement cited above in passing: Mar Zutra expounded in the name of Rav Huna: The halakha is that one fasts and completes the fast on the eves of Shabbat and Festivals.


讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讘讻诇 诪注专讘讬谉



诪转谞讬壮 诪讬 砖讛讜爪讬讗讜讛讜 谞讻专讬诐 讗讜 专讜讞 专注讛 讗讬谉 诇讜 讗诇讗 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转


MISHNA: With regard to one whom gentiles forcibly took him out beyond the Shabbat limit, or if an evil spirit took him out, i.e., he was temporarily insane, and found himself outside the Shabbat limit, he has only four cubits that he may walk from where he is standing.


讛讞讝讬专讜讛讜 讻讗讬诇讜 诇讗 讬爪讗


If the gentiles returned him, or if he came back while still under the influence of the evil spirit, it is as though he had never left his Shabbat limit, and he may move about within his original limit as before.


讛讜诇讬讻讜讛讜 诇注讬专 讗讞专转 谞转谞讜讛讜 讘讚讬专 讗讜 讘住讛专 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪讛诇讱 讗转 讻讜诇讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 诇讜 讗诇讗 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转:


If the gentiles brought him to a different city that was surrounded by walls, or if they put him into a pen or a stable, i.e., animal enclosures, the Sages disagree. Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya say: He may walk about the entire city, as the whole city is considered like four cubits. Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Akiva say: He has only four cubits from where he was placed.


诪注砖讛 砖讘讗讜 诪驻诇谞讚专住讬谉 讜讛驻诇讬讙讛 住驻讬谞转诐 讘讬诐 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 讛诇讻讜 讗转 讻讜诇讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诇讗 讝讝讜 诪讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 砖专爪讜 诇讛讞诪讬专 注诇 注爪诪谉


The mishna relates: There was an incident where all of these Sages were coming from Pelandarsin, an overseas location, and their boat set sail on the sea on Shabbat, taking them beyond their Shabbat limit. Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya walked about the entire boat, as they hold that the entire boat is considered like four cubits, while Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Akiva did not move beyond four cubits, as they sought to be stringent with themselves.


驻注诐 讗讞转 诇讗 谞讻谞住讜 诇谞诪诇 注讚 砖讞砖讬讻讛 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诇专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 诪讛 讗谞讜 诇讬专讚


The mishna further relates that on one occasion, they did not enter the port [namel] until after nightfall on Shabbat eve. The others said to Rabban Gamliel: What is the halakha with regard to alighting from the boat at this time? In other words, were we already within the city鈥檚 limit before Shabbat commenced?


讗诪专 诇讛诐 诪讜转专讬诐 讗转诐 砖讻讘专 讛讬讬转讬 诪住转讻诇 讜讛讬讬谞讜 讘转讜讱 讛转讞讜诐 注讚 砖诇讗 讞砖讬讻讛:


He said to them: You are permitted to alight, as I was watching, and I observed that we were already within the city鈥檚 limit before nightfall. We acquired our resting place in the city during the twilight period. Therefore, it is permitted to walk throughout the city even after nightfall.


讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 砖诇砖讛 讚讘专讬诐 诪注讘讬专讬谉 讗转 讛讗讚诐 注诇 讚注转讜 讜注诇 讚注转 拽讜谞讜 讗诇讜 讛谉 谞讻专讬诐 讜专讜讞 专注讛 讜讚拽讚讜拽讬 注谞讬讜转


GEMARA: Since the Gemara discussed one who stepped beyond the Shabbat limit due to an evil spirit, the Gemara cites a related baraita, in which the Sages taught: Three matters cause a person to act against his own will and the will of his Maker, and they are: Gentiles, and an evil spirit, and the depths of extreme poverty.


诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇诪讬讘注讬 专讞诪讬 注诇讬讬讛讜


The Gemara asks: What is the practical halakhic difference that emerges from this statement? The Gemara answers: It is significant as it teaches one to request mercy for people who suffer from those problems.


砖诇砖讛 讗讬谉 专讜讗讬谉 驻谞讬 讙讬讛谞诐 讗诇讜 讛谉 讚拽讚讜拽讬 注谞讬讜转 讜讞讜诇讬 诪注讬讬谉 讜讛专砖讜转 讜讬砖 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗祝 诪讬 砖讬砖 诇讜 讗砖讛 专注讛


The Gemara cites a related teaching: Three classes of people do not see the face of Gehenna, because the suffering that they bear in this world atones for their sins, and they are: Those suffering the depths of extreme poverty, those afflicted with intestinal disease, and those oppressed by creditors. And some say: Even one who has an evil wife who constantly harasses him.


讜讗讬讚讱 讗砖讛 专注讛 诪爪讜讛 诇讙专砖讛


The Gemara asks: And why don鈥檛 the other Sages include one with an evil wife among those who will not be punished in Gehenna? The Gemara answers: They maintain that it is a mitzva to divorce an evil wife. Therefore, that source of distress can be remedied.


讜讗讬讚讱 讝讬诪谞讬谉 讚讻转讜讘转讛 诪专讜讘讛 讗讬 谞诪讬 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讘谞讬诐 诪讬谞讛 讜诇讗 诪爪讬 诪讙专砖 诇讛


And why do the other Sages include an evil wife? The Gemara answers: Sometimes payment of her marriage contract is very large, and consequently he cannot divorce her since he cannot afford to pay it. Alternatively, he has children from her, and he cannot raise them himself, and therefore he cannot divorce her.


诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇拽讘讜诇讬 诪讗讛讘讛


The Gemara asks: What is the practical halakhic difference that emerges from this statement? The Gemara answers: It is significant as it teaches one to accept those afflictions with love, knowing that they will exempt him from the punishment of Gehenna.


砖诇砖讛 诪转讬谉 讻砖讛谉 诪住驻专讬谉 讜讗诇讜 讛谉 讞讜诇讬 诪注讬讬谉 讜讞讬讛 讜讛讚专讜拽谉


It was similarly taught: Three classes of people are liable to die while conversing with others, i.e., to die suddenly, although they appear to be in good health and are capable of engaging in conversation, and they are: Those afflicted with intestinal sickness, and a woman in childbirth, and one who is sick with edema [hidrokan].


诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇诪砖诪讜砖讬 讘讛讜 讝讜讜讚转讗:


Once again the Gemara asks: What is the practical halakhic difference that emerges from this statement? The Gemara answers: It is significant as it teaches one to prepare shrouds for them, in case they need them suddenly.


讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讬爪讗 诇讚注转 讗讬谉 诇讜 讗诇讗 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 驻砖讬讟讗 讛砖转讗 诪讬 砖讛讜爪讬讗讜讛讜 谞讻专讬诐 讗讬谉 诇讜 讗诇讗 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讬爪讗 诇讚注转 诪讬讘注讬讗


The Gemara proceeds to analyze the mishna: Rav Na岣an said that Shmuel said: If one knowingly went out beyond the Shabbat limit, he has only four cubits that he may walk. The Gemara asks: This is obvious. Now, if with regard to one whom gentiles forcibly took out beyond the Shabbat limit, he has only four cubits, with regard to one who knowingly went out, is it necessary to teach that he has no more than four cubits within which he may walk?


讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讞讝专 诇讚注转 讗讬谉 诇讜 讗诇讗 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转


Rather, say that Rav Na岣an鈥檚 statement means: If he returned knowingly to within the Shabbat limit after having been taken out by gentiles, he has only four cubits within which he may walk, but no more.


讛讗 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 讛讞讝讬专讜讛讜 谞讻专讬诐 讻讗讬诇讜 诇讗 讬爪讗 讛讞讝讬专讜讛讜 讛讜讗 讚讻讗讬诇讜 诇讗 讬爪讗 讗讘诇 讛讜爪讬讗讜讛讜 谞讻专讬诐 讜讞讝专 诇讚注转 讗讬谉 诇讜 讗诇讗 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转


The Gemara asks: This, too, we learned from a precise reading of the mishna: If the gentiles returned him to within the Shabbat limit it is as though he had never left the Shabbat limit, and he may move about as before. By inference, it is specifically when the gentiles themselves returned him that it is as though he never left his Shabbat limit. However, if gentiles took him out, and then he returned knowingly to his Shabbat limit, it is as though he left knowingly, and he has only four cubits within which he may walk.


讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讬爪讗 诇讚注转 讜讛讞讝讬专讜讛讜 谞讻专讬诐 讗讬谉 诇讜 讗诇讗 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转


Rather, say Rav Na岣an鈥檚 statement as follows: If he knowingly went out beyond the Shabbat limit, and was later forcibly returned by gentiles to within his limit, he has only four cubits that he may walk, although he was restored to within his limit against his will.


讛讗 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 讛讜爪讬讗讜讛讜 讜讛讞讝讬专讜讛讜 讻讗讬诇讜 诇讗 讬爪讗 讛讜爪讬讗讜讛讜 讜讛讞讝讬专讜讛讜 讛讜讗 讚讻讗讬诇讜 诇讗 讬爪讗 讗讘诇 讬爪讗 诇讚注转 诇讗


The Gemara raises a difficulty: This, too, we learned from a precise reading of the mishna: If gentiles forcibly took him out and later returned him, it is as though he never left. By inference, it is specifically when the gentiles themselves forcibly took him out and then themselves returned him that it is as though he never left the Shabbat limit. However, if he knowingly went out, no, that is not the halakha, even if he was later forcibly returned by gentiles.


诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诇爪讚讚讬谉 拽转谞讬 诪讬 砖讛讜爪讬讗讜讛讜 谞讻专讬诐 讜讞讝专 诇讚注转 讗讬谉 诇讜 讗诇讗 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讗讘诇 讬爪讗 诇讚注转 讜讛讞讝讬专讜讛讜 谞讻专讬诐 讻讗讬诇讜 诇讗 讬爪讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉


The Gemara answers: Rav Na岣an鈥檚 statement is necessary lest you say that perhaps the mishna is not referring to one specific case, but rather it is teaching disjunctively, i.e., referring to two separate cases, as follows: One who was forcibly taken out beyond the Shabbat limit by gentiles and later returned knowingly has only four cubits within which to walk. But if he knowingly went out beyond the Shabbat limit and was later forcibly returned by gentiles, it is as though he had never left, and he may move within his original limit as before. Therefore, Rav Na岣an teaches us that if he willingly went out beyond the Shabbat limit and was later forcibly returned by gentiles, it is considered as though he had returned knowingly, so that he has only four cubits within which to walk.


讘注讜 诪讬谞讬讛 诪专讘讛 讛讜爪专讱 诇谞拽讘讬讜 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讛诐 讙讚讜诇 讻讘讜讚 讛讘专讬讜转 砖讚讜讞讛 讗转 诇讗 转注砖讛 砖讘转讜专讛


They raised a dilemma before Rabba: If a person who is restricted to an area of four cubits needed to relieve himself and no secluded spot is available, what is the halakha? He said to them: The Sages established a principle that great is human dignity, which even supersedes a negative precept of the Torah, and therefore a person is permitted to overstep the Shabbat limit fixed by the Sages in order to relieve himself modestly.


讗诪专讬 谞讛专讚注讬 讗讬 驻讬拽讞 讛讜讗 注讬讬诇 诇转讞讜诪讗 讜讻讬讜谉 讚注诇 注诇


The Sages of Neharde鈥檃 said: If this person is clever, he will enter into his original Shabbat limit, and since he was permitted to enter it, he entered, and may remain there.


讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 驻讬专讜转 砖讬爪讗讜 讞讜抓 诇转讞讜诐 讜讞讝专讜 讗驻讬诇讜 讘诪讝讬讚 诇讗 讛驻住讬讚讜 讗转 诪拽讜诪谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗谞讜住讬谉 谞讬谞讛讜


Rav Pappa said: With regard to produce that was taken out beyond the Shabbat limit and was later returned, even if this was done intentionally, the produce has not lost its place; rather, it may still be carried within the entire limit. What is the reason for this halakha? It is that the produce did not go out willingly, but was taken due to circumstances beyond its control.


讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 讘专 砖诪注讬讛 诇专讘 驻驻讗 专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇注讜诇诐 讗住讜专讬谉 注讚 砖讬讞讝专讜 诇诪拽讜诪谉 砖讜讙讙讬谉 讘砖讜讙讙 讗讬谉 讘诪讝讬讚 诇讗


Rav Yosef bar Shemaya raised an objection to the opinion of Rav Pappa from a baraita: Rabbi Ne岣mya and Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov say: It is actually prohibited to carry the produce beyond four cubits, unless it was returned to its place unwittingly. By inference, if it was returned unwittingly, yes, it is permitted, but if it was returned intentionally, it is not.


转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 驻讬专讜转 砖讬爪讗讜 讞讜抓 诇转讞讜诐 讘砖讜讙讙 讬讗讻诇讜 讘诪讝讬讚 诇讗 讬讗讻诇讜


The Gemara answers: This is subject to a dispute between the tanna鈥檌m, as it was taught in a baraita: With regard to produce that was taken out beyond the Shabbat limit, if it was taken out unwittingly, it may be eaten; but if it was taken out intentionally, it may not be eaten.


Masechet Eruvin is sponsored by Adina and Eric Hagege in honor of our parents, Rabbi Dov and Elayne Greenstone and Roger and Ketty Hagege who raised children, grandchildren and great grandchildren committed to Torah learning.

  • This month is sponsored by Esther Kremer in loving memory of her father, Manny Gross z'l, on his 1st yahrzeit

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Eruvin 38-44 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

This week will discuss topics in Daf 38-44 including if one can make a separate Eruv for Shabbat and a...
talking talmud_square

Eruvin 41: Fast Days, Feast Days, and When They Meet

THIS EPISODE IS SATURDAY'S DAF (Day 1 of Rosh Hashanah). What happens when Tisha B'Av falls out on Friday (which...

Eruvin 41

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Eruvin 41

讜讻谉 注专讘 转砖注讛 讘讗讘 砖讞诇 诇讛讬讜转 讘砖讘转 讗讜讻诇 讜砖讜转讛 讻诇 爪专讻讜 讜诪注诇讛 注诇 砖讜诇讞谞讜 讗驻讬诇讜 讻住注讜讚转 砖诇诪讛 讘砖注转讜 讞诇 诇讛讬讜转 转砖注讛 讘讗讘 讘注专讘 砖讘转 诪讘讬讗讬谉 诇讜 讻讘讬爪讛 讜讗讜讻诇 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 讬讻谞住 诇砖讘转 讻砖讛讜讗 诪注讜谞讛


and so too, on the eve of the Ninth of Av that occurs on Shabbat, one need not reduce the amount of food he eats; rather, he may eat and drink as much as he requires and bring to his table a meal even like that of King Solomon in his time. If the Ninth of Av occurs on Shabbat eve, we bring him an egg-bulk of food toward end of the day, and he eats it, so that he not enter Shabbat in a state of affliction.


转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 驻注诐 讗讞转 讛讬讬谞讜 讬讜砖讘讬谉 诇驻谞讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜转砖注讛 讘讗讘 砖讞诇 诇讛讬讜转 讘注专讘 砖讘转 讛讬讛 讜讛讘讬讗讜 诇讜 讘讬爪讛 诪讙讜诇讙诇转 讜讙诪注讛 讘诇讗 诪诇讞 讜诇讗 砖讛讬讛 转讗讘 诇讛 讗诇讗 诇讛专讗讜转 诇转诇诪讬讚讬诐 讛诇讻讛


It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda said: We were once sitting before Rabbi Akiva, and it was the Ninth of Av that occurs on Shabbat eve, and they brought him a slightly cooked egg, and he swallowed it without salt. And it was not that he desired it so much that he ate it; rather, he did so to show the students the halakha that one need not complete the fast when the Ninth of Av occurs on Shabbat eve, so as not enter Shabbat in a state of affliction.


讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 诪转注谞讛 讜诪砖诇讬诐 讗诪专 诇讛谉 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讬 讗转诐 诪讜讚讬诐 诇讬 讘转砖注讛 讘讗讘 砖讞诇 诇讛讬讜转 讘讗讞讚 讘砖讘转 砖诪驻住讬拽 诪讘注讜讚 讬讜诐 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讗讘诇 讗诪专 诇讛诐 诪讛 诇讬 诇讬讻谞住 讘讛 讻砖讛讜讗 诪注讜谞讛 诪讛 诇讬 诇爪讗转 诪诪谞讛 讻砖讛讜讗 诪注讜谞讛


And Rabbi Yosei says: He must fast and complete the fast. Rabbi Yosei said to the other Sages: Don鈥檛 you agree with me with regard to the Ninth of Av that occurs on Sunday, that one must stop eating on Shabbat while it is still day? They said to him: Indeed, we agree. Rabbi Yosei said to them: What is the difference to me between entering Shabbat in a state of affliction and leaving it in a state of affliction? If one stops eating before Shabbat is over, he is spending part of Shabbat fasting, and yet even the Sages concede that one must do so.


讗诪专讜 诇讜 讗诐 讗诪专转 诇爪讗转 诪诪谞讛 砖讛专讬 讗讻诇 讜砖转讛 讻诇 讛讬讜诐 讻讜诇讜 转讗诪专 诇讬讻谞住 讘讛 讻砖讛讜讗 诪注讜谞讛 砖诇讗 讗讻诇 讜砖转讛 讻诇 讛讬讜诐 讻讜诇讜


They said to him: There is a difference. If you said that one may leave Shabbat in a state of affliction, that is because he ate and drank the entire day and will not suffer if he fasts a few minutes at the end of the day. Can you say that it is the same to enter Shabbat in a state of affliction, when he has not eaten or drunk anything the entire day?


讜讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜诪讬 注讘讚讬谞谉 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜专诪讬谞讛讬 讗讬谉 讙讜讝专讬谉 转注谞讬转 注诇 讛爪讬讘讜专 讘专讗砖讬 讞讚砖讬诐 讘讞谞讜讻讛 讜讘驻讜专讬诐 讜讗诐 讛转讞讬诇讜 讗讬谉 诪驻住讬拽讬谉 讚讘专讬 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗诪专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗诪专 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讬谉 诪驻住讬拽讬谉 诪讜讚讛 讛讬讛 砖讗讬谉 诪砖诇讬诪讬谉 讜讻谉 讘转砖注讛 讘讗讘 砖讞诇 诇讛讬讜转 讘注专讘 砖讘转


And Ulla said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, and on the Ninth of Av that occurs on Shabbat eve one must complete the fast. The Gemara poses a question: Do we really act in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei? And the Gemara raises a contradiction based upon the following mishna: We do not initially decree a fast upon the public on the New Moon, Hanukkah, or Purim, and if the community had already begun a cycle of fasts and one of them fell out on one of these days, they do not interrupt the series; this is the statement of Rabban Gamliel. Rabbi Meir said: Even though Rabban Gamliel said that they do not interrupt the series, he conceded that they do not complete the fast on one of these days, and so too, the fast on the Ninth of Av that occurs on Shabbat eve is not completed.


讜转谞讬讗 诇讗讞专 驻讟讬专转讜 砖诇 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 谞讻谞住 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 诇讛驻专 讗转 讚讘专讬讜 注诪讚 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 注诇 专讙诇讬讜 讜讗诪专 讞讝讬 讗谞讗 讚讘转专 专讬砖讗 讙讜驻讗 讗讝讬诇 讻诇 讬诪讬讜 砖诇 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 拽讘注谞讜 讛诇讻讛 讻诪讜转讜 注讻砖讬讜 讗转讛 诪讘拽砖 诇讘讟诇 讚讘专讬讜 讬讛讜砖注 讗讬谉 砖讜诪注讬谉 诇讱 砖讻讘专 谞拽讘注讛 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜诇讗 讛讬讛 讗讚诐 砖注专注专 讘讚讘专 讻诇讜诐


And it was taught in a related baraita: Following the death of Rabban Gamliel, Rabbi Yehoshua entered the study hall to annul Rabban Gamliel鈥檚 statement with regard to fasts. Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri stood on his feet and said: I see that the appropriate policy is that the body must follow the head, i.e., we must follow the statements of the earlier authorities and not deviate from established halakha. All of Rabban Gamliel鈥檚 life we established the halakha in accordance with his opinion, and now you seek to annul his statement? Yehoshua, we do not listen to you, as the halakha has already been established in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Gamliel. And there was no one who disputed this statement in any way. Therefore, this baraita demonstrates that when the Ninth of Av occurs on Shabbat eve, one must observe the fast but not complete it, and this was the accepted practice.


讘讚讜专讜 砖诇 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 注讘讜讚 讻专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讘讚讜专讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 注讘讜讚 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬


The Gemara resolves the difficulty, arguing that this proof is not conclusive: Indeed, in the generation of Rabban Gamliel they acted in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Gamliel, but in the generation of Rabbi Yosei they acted in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, and from then on, the halakha follows his view.


讜讘讚讜专讜 砖诇 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 注讘讜讚 讻专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜讛转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 (讘谉) 爪讚讜拽 讗谞讬 (讛讬讬转讬) 诪讘谞讬 住谞讗讘 讘谉 讘谞讬诪讬谉 驻注诐 讗讞转 讞诇 转砖注讛 讘讗讘 诇讛讬讜转 讘砖讘转 讜讚讞讬谞讜讛讜 诇讗讞专 讛砖讘转 讜讛转注谞讬谞讜 讘讜 讜诇讗 讛砖诇诪谞讜讛讜 诪驻谞讬 砖讬讜诐 讟讜讘 砖诇谞讜 讛讬讛 讟注诪讗 讚讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讛讗 注专讘 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诪砖诇讬诪讬谉


The Gemara asks: And is it correct that in the generation of Rabban Gamliel they acted in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Gamliel? Wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Elazar ben Tzadok, a contemporary of Rabban Gamliel, said: I am a descendant of Sena鈥檃v ben Binyamin, who observed a family festival on the tenth of Av. One time, the Ninth of Av occurred on Shabbat, and we postponed it until after Shabbat, as we do not observe the fast on Shabbat, and we fasted on Sunday but did not complete the fast because that day was our Festival. This indicates that the reason they did not complete the fast is that the day itself was a Festival for them, but on the eve of a Festival, they would indeed complete it. This proves that even in the generation of Rabban Gamliel, they did complete fasts on the eve of Shabbat and Festivals.


讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 砖讗谞讬 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 砖诇 讚讘专讬讛诐 诪转讜讱 砖诪转注谞讬谉 讘讜 砖注讜转 诪砖诇讬诪讬谉 讘讜 注专讘讬讜转 砖讘转 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讬谉 诪转注谞讬谉 讘讛 砖注讜转 讗讬谉 诪砖诇讬诪讬谉 讘讛 注专讘讬讜转


Ravina said that this story poses no difficulty: A rabbinic Festival is different, as they are not as stringent as Shabbat or Festivals stated in the Torah, and the festival of the family of Sena鈥檃v was not a Festival from the Torah, but one established by the Sages. Since one may fast on such a Festival for a number of hours, i.e., one may fast on it for part of the day, one also completes a fast observed on the eve of such a Festival until the evening. With regard to Shabbat, however, since one may not fast on it even for several hours, one does not complete a fast observed on Shabbat eve.


讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诇讗 砖诪讬注 诇讬 讛讗 砖诪注转讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗转 讗诪专转 谞讬讛诇谉 讜讗讛讗 讗诪专转 谞讬讛诇谉 讗讬谉 讙讜讝专讬谉 转注谞讬转 注诇 讛爪讘讜专 讘专讗砖讬 讞讚砖讬诐 讜讻讜壮 讜讗诪专讬谞谉 注诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讝讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 砖讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讘诇 讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪转注谞讛 讜诪砖诇讬诐


Rav Yosef said: I did not hear this ruling that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. Rav Yosef had fallen ill and forgotten his learning and so was unable to remember that such a ruling had been issued. His student, Abaye, said to him: You yourself told us this halakha, and it was with regard to this point that you told it to us, as we learned in a mishna: We do not initially decree a fast upon the public on the New Moon, on Hanukkah, or on Purim. Rabbi Meir said: Even though Rabban Gamliel said that if the community had already begun a cycle of fasts, they do not interrupt the series, he conceded that they do not complete the fast on one of these days, and similarly, the fast of the Ninth of Av that occurs on Shabbat eve is not completed. And we said with regard to this mishna that Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: This is the statement that Rabbi Meir said in the name of Rabban Gamliel. But the Rabbis say: One must fast and complete the fast.


诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讗讻讜诇讛讜 诇讗 讗讞谞讜讻讛 讜驻讜专讬诐


What? Does the Rabbis鈥 ruling that one must complete the fast not refer to all the cases mentioned in the mishna, including that of the Ninth of Av that occurs on Shabbat eve? No, it was stated only with regard to Hanukkah and Purim, but one would not complete a fast on Shabbat eve.


讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗


The Gemara comments: So too, it is reasonable to explain that this ruling does not apply to Shabbat eve,


讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗讻讜诇讛讜 讛讗 讘注讬 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讛 诪专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讜诇讗 驻砖讟 诇讬讛


as, if it should enter your mind to say that Rav Yehuda said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis with regard to all the cases in the mishna, including that of the Ninth of Av that occurs on Shabbat eve, there is a difficulty: Didn鈥檛 Rabba raise a dilemma before Rav Yehuda with regard to this issue, and he did not answer him? This demonstrates that he did not have a decisive ruling on this subject.


讜诇讟注诪讬讱 讛讗 讚讚专砖 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛诇讻讛 诪转注谞讛 讜诪砖诇讬诐 讛讗 讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讛 诪专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜诇讗 驻砖讟 诇讬讛


The Gemara responds: And according to your opinion, that the issue had not been resolved, there is a difficulty with that which Mar Zutra expounded in the name of Rav Huna: The halakha is that one fasts and completes the fast on Shabbat eve. Didn鈥檛 Rabba also raise this dilemma before Rav Huna, and he too did not answer him? How could Mar Zutra have reported this halakhic ruling in the name of Rav Huna?


讗诇讗 讛讗 诪拽诪讬 讚砖诪注讛 讜讛讗 诇讘转专 讚砖诪注讛 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讛讗 诪拽诪讬 讚砖诪注讛 讛讗 诇讘转专 讚砖诪注讛


Rather, you must say that this dilemma that Rabba raised to Rav Huna was before Rav Huna heard Rav鈥檚 ruling on the subject; whereas this, i.e., Rav Huna鈥檚 statement as cited by Mar Zutra, was made after he heard Rav鈥檚 ruling on the matter, and the problem was resolved for him. Here, too, with regard to Rav Yehuda, we can say that this dilemma that Rabba raised before Rav Yehuda was before Rav Yehuda heard Rav鈥檚 ruling on the topic, and therefore he did not know how to answer Rabba; whereas this, i.e., Rav Yehuda鈥檚 statement in the name of Rav, was made after he heard it.


讚专砖 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛诇讻讛 诪转注谞讬谉 讜诪砖诇讬诪讬谉:


The Gemara repeats the statement cited above in passing: Mar Zutra expounded in the name of Rav Huna: The halakha is that one fasts and completes the fast on the eves of Shabbat and Festivals.


讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讘讻诇 诪注专讘讬谉



诪转谞讬壮 诪讬 砖讛讜爪讬讗讜讛讜 谞讻专讬诐 讗讜 专讜讞 专注讛 讗讬谉 诇讜 讗诇讗 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转


MISHNA: With regard to one whom gentiles forcibly took him out beyond the Shabbat limit, or if an evil spirit took him out, i.e., he was temporarily insane, and found himself outside the Shabbat limit, he has only four cubits that he may walk from where he is standing.


讛讞讝讬专讜讛讜 讻讗讬诇讜 诇讗 讬爪讗


If the gentiles returned him, or if he came back while still under the influence of the evil spirit, it is as though he had never left his Shabbat limit, and he may move about within his original limit as before.


讛讜诇讬讻讜讛讜 诇注讬专 讗讞专转 谞转谞讜讛讜 讘讚讬专 讗讜 讘住讛专 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪讛诇讱 讗转 讻讜诇讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 诇讜 讗诇讗 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转:


If the gentiles brought him to a different city that was surrounded by walls, or if they put him into a pen or a stable, i.e., animal enclosures, the Sages disagree. Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya say: He may walk about the entire city, as the whole city is considered like four cubits. Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Akiva say: He has only four cubits from where he was placed.


诪注砖讛 砖讘讗讜 诪驻诇谞讚专住讬谉 讜讛驻诇讬讙讛 住驻讬谞转诐 讘讬诐 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 讛诇讻讜 讗转 讻讜诇讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诇讗 讝讝讜 诪讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 砖专爪讜 诇讛讞诪讬专 注诇 注爪诪谉


The mishna relates: There was an incident where all of these Sages were coming from Pelandarsin, an overseas location, and their boat set sail on the sea on Shabbat, taking them beyond their Shabbat limit. Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya walked about the entire boat, as they hold that the entire boat is considered like four cubits, while Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Akiva did not move beyond four cubits, as they sought to be stringent with themselves.


驻注诐 讗讞转 诇讗 谞讻谞住讜 诇谞诪诇 注讚 砖讞砖讬讻讛 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诇专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 诪讛 讗谞讜 诇讬专讚


The mishna further relates that on one occasion, they did not enter the port [namel] until after nightfall on Shabbat eve. The others said to Rabban Gamliel: What is the halakha with regard to alighting from the boat at this time? In other words, were we already within the city鈥檚 limit before Shabbat commenced?


讗诪专 诇讛诐 诪讜转专讬诐 讗转诐 砖讻讘专 讛讬讬转讬 诪住转讻诇 讜讛讬讬谞讜 讘转讜讱 讛转讞讜诐 注讚 砖诇讗 讞砖讬讻讛:


He said to them: You are permitted to alight, as I was watching, and I observed that we were already within the city鈥檚 limit before nightfall. We acquired our resting place in the city during the twilight period. Therefore, it is permitted to walk throughout the city even after nightfall.


讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 砖诇砖讛 讚讘专讬诐 诪注讘讬专讬谉 讗转 讛讗讚诐 注诇 讚注转讜 讜注诇 讚注转 拽讜谞讜 讗诇讜 讛谉 谞讻专讬诐 讜专讜讞 专注讛 讜讚拽讚讜拽讬 注谞讬讜转


GEMARA: Since the Gemara discussed one who stepped beyond the Shabbat limit due to an evil spirit, the Gemara cites a related baraita, in which the Sages taught: Three matters cause a person to act against his own will and the will of his Maker, and they are: Gentiles, and an evil spirit, and the depths of extreme poverty.


诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇诪讬讘注讬 专讞诪讬 注诇讬讬讛讜


The Gemara asks: What is the practical halakhic difference that emerges from this statement? The Gemara answers: It is significant as it teaches one to request mercy for people who suffer from those problems.


砖诇砖讛 讗讬谉 专讜讗讬谉 驻谞讬 讙讬讛谞诐 讗诇讜 讛谉 讚拽讚讜拽讬 注谞讬讜转 讜讞讜诇讬 诪注讬讬谉 讜讛专砖讜转 讜讬砖 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗祝 诪讬 砖讬砖 诇讜 讗砖讛 专注讛


The Gemara cites a related teaching: Three classes of people do not see the face of Gehenna, because the suffering that they bear in this world atones for their sins, and they are: Those suffering the depths of extreme poverty, those afflicted with intestinal disease, and those oppressed by creditors. And some say: Even one who has an evil wife who constantly harasses him.


讜讗讬讚讱 讗砖讛 专注讛 诪爪讜讛 诇讙专砖讛


The Gemara asks: And why don鈥檛 the other Sages include one with an evil wife among those who will not be punished in Gehenna? The Gemara answers: They maintain that it is a mitzva to divorce an evil wife. Therefore, that source of distress can be remedied.


讜讗讬讚讱 讝讬诪谞讬谉 讚讻转讜讘转讛 诪专讜讘讛 讗讬 谞诪讬 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讘谞讬诐 诪讬谞讛 讜诇讗 诪爪讬 诪讙专砖 诇讛


And why do the other Sages include an evil wife? The Gemara answers: Sometimes payment of her marriage contract is very large, and consequently he cannot divorce her since he cannot afford to pay it. Alternatively, he has children from her, and he cannot raise them himself, and therefore he cannot divorce her.


诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇拽讘讜诇讬 诪讗讛讘讛


The Gemara asks: What is the practical halakhic difference that emerges from this statement? The Gemara answers: It is significant as it teaches one to accept those afflictions with love, knowing that they will exempt him from the punishment of Gehenna.


砖诇砖讛 诪转讬谉 讻砖讛谉 诪住驻专讬谉 讜讗诇讜 讛谉 讞讜诇讬 诪注讬讬谉 讜讞讬讛 讜讛讚专讜拽谉


It was similarly taught: Three classes of people are liable to die while conversing with others, i.e., to die suddenly, although they appear to be in good health and are capable of engaging in conversation, and they are: Those afflicted with intestinal sickness, and a woman in childbirth, and one who is sick with edema [hidrokan].


诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇诪砖诪讜砖讬 讘讛讜 讝讜讜讚转讗:


Once again the Gemara asks: What is the practical halakhic difference that emerges from this statement? The Gemara answers: It is significant as it teaches one to prepare shrouds for them, in case they need them suddenly.


讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讬爪讗 诇讚注转 讗讬谉 诇讜 讗诇讗 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 驻砖讬讟讗 讛砖转讗 诪讬 砖讛讜爪讬讗讜讛讜 谞讻专讬诐 讗讬谉 诇讜 讗诇讗 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讬爪讗 诇讚注转 诪讬讘注讬讗


The Gemara proceeds to analyze the mishna: Rav Na岣an said that Shmuel said: If one knowingly went out beyond the Shabbat limit, he has only four cubits that he may walk. The Gemara asks: This is obvious. Now, if with regard to one whom gentiles forcibly took out beyond the Shabbat limit, he has only four cubits, with regard to one who knowingly went out, is it necessary to teach that he has no more than four cubits within which he may walk?


讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讞讝专 诇讚注转 讗讬谉 诇讜 讗诇讗 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转


Rather, say that Rav Na岣an鈥檚 statement means: If he returned knowingly to within the Shabbat limit after having been taken out by gentiles, he has only four cubits within which he may walk, but no more.


讛讗 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 讛讞讝讬专讜讛讜 谞讻专讬诐 讻讗讬诇讜 诇讗 讬爪讗 讛讞讝讬专讜讛讜 讛讜讗 讚讻讗讬诇讜 诇讗 讬爪讗 讗讘诇 讛讜爪讬讗讜讛讜 谞讻专讬诐 讜讞讝专 诇讚注转 讗讬谉 诇讜 讗诇讗 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转


The Gemara asks: This, too, we learned from a precise reading of the mishna: If the gentiles returned him to within the Shabbat limit it is as though he had never left the Shabbat limit, and he may move about as before. By inference, it is specifically when the gentiles themselves returned him that it is as though he never left his Shabbat limit. However, if gentiles took him out, and then he returned knowingly to his Shabbat limit, it is as though he left knowingly, and he has only four cubits within which he may walk.


讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讬爪讗 诇讚注转 讜讛讞讝讬专讜讛讜 谞讻专讬诐 讗讬谉 诇讜 讗诇讗 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转


Rather, say Rav Na岣an鈥檚 statement as follows: If he knowingly went out beyond the Shabbat limit, and was later forcibly returned by gentiles to within his limit, he has only four cubits that he may walk, although he was restored to within his limit against his will.


讛讗 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 讛讜爪讬讗讜讛讜 讜讛讞讝讬专讜讛讜 讻讗讬诇讜 诇讗 讬爪讗 讛讜爪讬讗讜讛讜 讜讛讞讝讬专讜讛讜 讛讜讗 讚讻讗讬诇讜 诇讗 讬爪讗 讗讘诇 讬爪讗 诇讚注转 诇讗


The Gemara raises a difficulty: This, too, we learned from a precise reading of the mishna: If gentiles forcibly took him out and later returned him, it is as though he never left. By inference, it is specifically when the gentiles themselves forcibly took him out and then themselves returned him that it is as though he never left the Shabbat limit. However, if he knowingly went out, no, that is not the halakha, even if he was later forcibly returned by gentiles.


诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诇爪讚讚讬谉 拽转谞讬 诪讬 砖讛讜爪讬讗讜讛讜 谞讻专讬诐 讜讞讝专 诇讚注转 讗讬谉 诇讜 讗诇讗 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讗讘诇 讬爪讗 诇讚注转 讜讛讞讝讬专讜讛讜 谞讻专讬诐 讻讗讬诇讜 诇讗 讬爪讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉


The Gemara answers: Rav Na岣an鈥檚 statement is necessary lest you say that perhaps the mishna is not referring to one specific case, but rather it is teaching disjunctively, i.e., referring to two separate cases, as follows: One who was forcibly taken out beyond the Shabbat limit by gentiles and later returned knowingly has only four cubits within which to walk. But if he knowingly went out beyond the Shabbat limit and was later forcibly returned by gentiles, it is as though he had never left, and he may move within his original limit as before. Therefore, Rav Na岣an teaches us that if he willingly went out beyond the Shabbat limit and was later forcibly returned by gentiles, it is considered as though he had returned knowingly, so that he has only four cubits within which to walk.


讘注讜 诪讬谞讬讛 诪专讘讛 讛讜爪专讱 诇谞拽讘讬讜 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讛诐 讙讚讜诇 讻讘讜讚 讛讘专讬讜转 砖讚讜讞讛 讗转 诇讗 转注砖讛 砖讘转讜专讛


They raised a dilemma before Rabba: If a person who is restricted to an area of four cubits needed to relieve himself and no secluded spot is available, what is the halakha? He said to them: The Sages established a principle that great is human dignity, which even supersedes a negative precept of the Torah, and therefore a person is permitted to overstep the Shabbat limit fixed by the Sages in order to relieve himself modestly.


讗诪专讬 谞讛专讚注讬 讗讬 驻讬拽讞 讛讜讗 注讬讬诇 诇转讞讜诪讗 讜讻讬讜谉 讚注诇 注诇


The Sages of Neharde鈥檃 said: If this person is clever, he will enter into his original Shabbat limit, and since he was permitted to enter it, he entered, and may remain there.


讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 驻讬专讜转 砖讬爪讗讜 讞讜抓 诇转讞讜诐 讜讞讝专讜 讗驻讬诇讜 讘诪讝讬讚 诇讗 讛驻住讬讚讜 讗转 诪拽讜诪谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗谞讜住讬谉 谞讬谞讛讜


Rav Pappa said: With regard to produce that was taken out beyond the Shabbat limit and was later returned, even if this was done intentionally, the produce has not lost its place; rather, it may still be carried within the entire limit. What is the reason for this halakha? It is that the produce did not go out willingly, but was taken due to circumstances beyond its control.


讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 讘专 砖诪注讬讛 诇专讘 驻驻讗 专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇注讜诇诐 讗住讜专讬谉 注讚 砖讬讞讝专讜 诇诪拽讜诪谉 砖讜讙讙讬谉 讘砖讜讙讙 讗讬谉 讘诪讝讬讚 诇讗


Rav Yosef bar Shemaya raised an objection to the opinion of Rav Pappa from a baraita: Rabbi Ne岣mya and Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov say: It is actually prohibited to carry the produce beyond four cubits, unless it was returned to its place unwittingly. By inference, if it was returned unwittingly, yes, it is permitted, but if it was returned intentionally, it is not.


转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 驻讬专讜转 砖讬爪讗讜 讞讜抓 诇转讞讜诐 讘砖讜讙讙 讬讗讻诇讜 讘诪讝讬讚 诇讗 讬讗讻诇讜


The Gemara answers: This is subject to a dispute between the tanna鈥檌m, as it was taught in a baraita: With regard to produce that was taken out beyond the Shabbat limit, if it was taken out unwittingly, it may be eaten; but if it was taken out intentionally, it may not be eaten.


Scroll To Top