Eruvin 42
רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה אוֹמֵר: בִּמְקוֹמָן — יֵאָכֵלוּ, שֶׁלֹּא בִּמְקוֹמָן — לֹא יֵאָכֵלוּ.
Rabbi Neḥemya says: If the produce was returned and is now in its original place, it may be eaten; but if it is not in its original place, i.e., if it is still beyond the Shabbat limit, it may not be eaten.
מַאי בִּמְקוֹמָן? אִילֵּימָא: בִּמְקוֹמָן — בְּמֵזִיד, וְהָא קָתָנֵי בְּהֶדְיָא, רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמְרִים: לְעוֹלָם אֲסוּרִין עַד שֶׁיַּחְזְרוּ לִמְקוֹמָן שׁוֹגְגִין. בְּשׁוֹגֵג — אִין, בְּמֵזִיד — לָא.
The Gemara clarifies: What is meant by: In its place? If you say that the produce was returned to its place intentionally, there is a difficulty, as it was explicitly taught in a baraita: Rabbi Neḥemya and Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov say: It is actually prohibited to carry the produce beyond four cubits, unless it was returned to its place unwittingly. By inference, only if it was returned unwittingly is it indeed permitted, but if it was returned intentionally, it is not permitted.
אֶלָּא לָאו: בִּמְקוֹמָן — בְּשׁוֹגֵג, וְחַסּוֹרֵי מְחַסְּרָא, וְהָכִי קָתָנֵי: פֵּירוֹת שֶׁיָּצְאוּ חוּץ לַתְּחוּם, בְּשׁוֹגֵג — יֵאָכֵלוּ, בְּמֵזִיד — לֹא יֵאָכֵלוּ.
Rather, does it not mean that the produce was returned to its place unwittingly, and the baraita is incomplete and it teaches the following: 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.
בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים — שֶׁלֹּא בִּמְקוֹמָן, אֲבָל בִּמְקוֹמָן — אֲפִילּוּ בְּמֵזִיד יֵאָכֵלוּ. וַאֲתָא רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה לְמֵימַר: אֲפִילּוּ בִּמְקוֹמָן נָמֵי, בְּשׁוֹגֵג — אִין, בְּמֵזִיד — לָא.
In what case is this statement said? In a case where the produce is not in its original place, i.e., it is still beyond the Shabbat limit. But if it was returned and is now in its original place, even if it was returned intentionally, it may be eaten. And Rabbi Neḥemya came to say: Even if the produce was returned and is now in its original place, a distinction applies. If it was returned unwittingly, yes, it is permitted; but if it was returned intentionally, it is not.
לָא, בְּמֵזִיד בִּמְקוֹמָן — דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דְּאָסוּר, וְהָכָא בְּשׁוֹגֵג שֶׁלֹּא בִּמְקוֹמָן פְּלִיגִי: תַּנָּא קַמָּא סָבַר בְּשׁוֹגֵג שְׁרֵי שֶׁלֹּא בִּמְקוֹמָן, וְרַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה סָבַר אֲפִילּוּ שׁוֹגֵג, בִּמְקוֹמָן — אִין, שֶׁלֹּא בִּמְקוֹמָן — לָא.
The Gemara rejects this explanation: No, this is not necessarily the case, as the baraita can also be explained as follows: If the produce was returned intentionally to its place, everyone agrees, i.e., both the first tanna and Rabbi Neḥemya, that it is forbidden. However, here they disagree with regard to produce that was unwittingly taken out beyond the Shabbat limit and was not returned, so that it is not in its original place. The first tanna holds that if the produce was taken out unwittingly, it is permitted to be eaten, even if it is not in its original place. However, Rabbi Neḥemya holds that even if the produce was taken out unwittingly, if it was returned to its original place, it is permitted; but if it was not returned to its original place, it is not permitted.
וְהָא מִדְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמְרִים: לְעוֹלָם אֲסוּרִין עַד שֶׁיַּחְזְרוּ לִמְקוֹמָן שׁוֹגְגִין, שׁוֹגֵג — אִין, בְּמֵזִיד — לָא, מִכְּלָל דְּתַנָּא קַמָּא סָבַר: בְּמֵזִיד נָמֵי שְׁרֵי. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
The Gemara objects to this reading: However, since the latter clause of this baraita teaches that Rabbi Neḥemya and Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov say: Actually, carrying the produce beyond four cubits is prohibited, unless it was returned to its place unwittingly, and by inference, only if it was unwittingly returned is it indeed permitted; however, if it was returned intentionally, it is not permitted. And since Rabbi Neḥemya maintains that produce that was intentionally returned to its place is forbidden, by inference, the first tanna holds that even if it was returned intentionally, it is also permitted. If so, the preceding explanation cannot be accepted, and the Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from here that Rav Pappa’s opinion is supported by the opinion of the first tanna.
אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הָיָה מְהַלֵּךְ וְאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ תְּחוּם שַׁבָּת, מְהַלֵּךְ אַלְפַּיִם פְּסִיעוֹת בֵּינוֹנִיּוֹת, וְזוֹ הִיא תְּחוּם שַׁבָּת.
Rav Naḥman said that Shmuel said: If one was walking in a certain place and does not know where the Shabbat limit lies, he may take two thousand medium strides in each direction from the spot he acquired as his place of residence, and this is the Shabbat limit, for a medium stride is approximately a cubit.
וְאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: שָׁבַת בְּבִקְעָה, וְהִקִּיפוּהָ נׇכְרִים מְחִיצָה בְּשַׁבָּת — מְהַלֵּךְ אַלְפַּיִם אַמָּה, וּמְטַלְטֵל בְּכוּלָּהּ עַל יְדֵי זְרִיקָה.
And Rav Naḥman also said that Shmuel said: If one established residence in a valley, and gentiles surrounded the entire area with a partition for the purpose of residence on Shabbat, he may walk only two thousand cubits in each direction, as he cannot rely on partitions that were not present when he acquired his place of residence. However, he may carry in the entire partitioned area, as in any other private domain, even in the part that is beyond his two thousand cubits, but only by means of throwing, as he himself cannot accompany the object past two thousand cubits.
וְרַב הוּנָא אָמַר: מְהַלֵּךְ אַלְפַּיִם אַמָּה, וּמְטַלְטֵל אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת. וְנִיטַּלְטֵל בְּכוּלַּהּ עַל יְדֵי זְרִיקָה?
Rav Huna said: He may walk two thousand cubits; however, even within this area he may carry objects only a distance of four cubits, as in a karmelit. The Gemara asks: And let him be permitted to carry in the entire partitioned area by means of throwing. Although he himself is limited in where he may walk, the partitions render it a private domain, and he should be permitted to carry in the entire area.
שֶׁמָּא יִמָּשֵׁךְ אַחַר חֶפְצוֹ.
The Gemara answers: The Sages prohibited this as a preventive measure, lest he be drawn after his object. It is prohibited for him to leave the two thousand cubit limit, but were he permitted to carry by means of throwing, he might follow his object and go out beyond his permitted limit.
בְּאַלְפַּיִם מִיהַת לִיטַלְטֵל כִּי אוֹרְחֵיהּ!
The Gemara asks: Within two thousand cubits, at any rate, let him carry the object in his usual manner. Since he may traverse this area, there should be no concern that he might come to be drawn after the object.
מִשּׁוּם דְּהָוֵי כִּמְחִיצָה שֶׁנִּפְרְצָה בִּמְלוֹאָהּ לְמָקוֹם הָאָסוּר לָהּ.
The Gemara answers that this is prohibited due to another aspect of the laws of eiruvin, namely because this is similar to the case of a partition that is breached in its entirety, leaving the space open to a place into which it is prohibited to carry. Since he may not carry more than two thousand cubits, and the enclosed area is larger than two thousand cubits, the area that is permitted to him is breached in its entirety, left open to an area that is prohibited to him. Consequently, carrying is prohibited in the entire area, even by means of throwing.
חִיָּיא בַּר רַב אָמַר: מְהַלֵּךְ אַלְפַּיִם אַמָּה, וּמְטַלְטֵל בְּאַלְפַּיִם אַמָּה. כְּמַאן? דְּלָא כְּרַב נַחְמָן וְלָא כְּרַב הוּנָא!
However, Ḥiyya bar Rav said: In that case, he may walk two thousand cubits, and he may also carry objects within these two thousand cubits. The Gemara poses a question: In accordance with whose opinion did Ḥiyya bar Rav issue his ruling? It is neither in accordance with the opinion of Rav Naḥman, nor in accordance with the opinion of Rav Huna, while this dispute would appear to leave no place for a third opinion.
אֵימָא: מְטַלְטֵל בְּאַרְבַּע. אִי הָכִי, הַיְינוּ דְּרַב הוּנָא. אֵימָא: וְכֵן אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר רַב.
The Gemara answers: Read Ḥiyya bar Rav’s ruling as follows: He may carry objects only a distance of four cubits. The Gemara asks: If so, this is the same as the opinion of Rav Huna. The Gemara answers: Read it then as follows: And similarly, Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Rav said.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב נַחְמָן לְרַב הוּנָא: לָא תִּיפְלוֹג עֲלֵיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל, דְּתַנְיָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ. דְּתַנְיָא:
Rav Naḥman said to Rav Huna: Do not argue with the opinion of Shmuel as cited by Rav Naḥman with regard to a field surrounded by a partition on Shabbat, as it was taught in a baraita in accordance with his opinion. As it was taught in a baraita:
הָיָה מוֹדֵד וּבָא, וְכָלְתָה מִדָּתוֹ בַּחֲצִי הָעִיר — מוּתָּר לְטַלְטֵל בְּכׇל הָעִיר כּוּלָּהּ, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יַעֲבוֹר אֶת הַתְּחוּם בְּרַגְלָיו. מַאי מְטַלְטֵל, לָאו עַל יְדֵי זְרִיקָה?
If a person was measuring the two thousand cubits of his Shabbat limit from the spot where he deposited his eiruv, and his measuring ended in the middle of the city, he is permitted to carry throughout the city, provided that he does not overstep the limit by foot, i.e., that he does not walk beyond his permitted limit in the middle of the city. If he cannot walk about on foot, how can he carry throughout the city? Is it not by means of throwing? This presents a difficulty for Rav Huna, who prohibits carrying by means of throwing in a place where it is prohibited to walk.
אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: לָא, עַל יְדֵי מְשִׁיכָה.
Rav Huna said: No, it means that he may carry in the city by means of pulling, i.e., he is permitted to pull objects from the other side of the city to the side where he is permitted to walk, for in this manner there is no concern that he might be drawn after the object, since he is bringing the object to him.
אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: הָיָה מוֹדֵד וּבָא, וְכָלְתָה מִדָּתוֹ בַּחֲצִי חָצֵר — אֵין לוֹ אֶלָּא חֲצִי חָצֵר.
Similarly, Rav Huna said: If a person was measuring the two thousand cubits of his Shabbat limit from the spot where he deposited his eiruv, and his measuring ended in the middle of a courtyard, he has only half the courtyard in which to walk.
פְּשִׁיטָא! אֵימָא: יֵשׁ לוֹ חֲצִי חָצֵר.
The Gemara raises a difficulty: It is obvious that he is not permitted to walk beyond his Shabbat limit. The Gemara answers: Read Rav Huna’s statement as follows: He has half a courtyard, i.e., Rav Huna addresses a different aspect of the issue; namely, he permits carrying in half the courtyard.
הַאי נָמֵי פְּשִׁיטָא? מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: לֵיחוּשׁ דִּלְמָא אָתֵי לְטַלְטוֹלֵי בְּכוּלַּהּ, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
The Gemara asks: However, this too is obvious, for why should it be prohibited for him to carry in a private domain where he is permitted to walk? The Gemara answers: Lest you say that we should be concerned that if he is permitted to carry in half the courtyard, he might come to carry in the entire courtyard. Consequently, Rav Huna teaches us that this concern is not taken into account.
אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן, מוֹדֶה לִי הוּנָא: הָיָה מוֹדֵד וּבָא וְכָלְתָה מִדָּתוֹ עַל שְׂפַת תִּקְרָה — מוּתָּר לְטַלְטֵל בְּכׇל הַבַּיִת.
Rav Naḥman said: Rav Huna agrees with me that carrying is not prohibited in a comparable case, out of concern that the person be drawn after the object he is carrying: If a person was measuring the two thousand cubits of his Shabbat limit from the spot where he deposited his eiruv, and his measuring ended at the edge of the roof of a house, most of which stood outside his Shabbat limit, he is permitted to carry throughout the house by means of throwing.
מַאי טַעְמָא — הוֹאִיל וְתִקְרַת הַבַּיִת חוֹבֶטֶת.
What is the reason that Rav Huna agrees in this case? Because the edge of the roof of the house is regarded as if it presses down vertically at the end of his Shabbat limit, thus creating a partition, and so there is no concern that he might pass beyond this partition and be drawn after his object.
אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב נָתָן: כְּתַנָּאֵי. הוֹלִיכוּהוּ לְעִיר אַחֶרֶת, וּנְתָנוּהוּ בְּדִיר אוֹ בְּסַהַר, רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה אוֹמְרִים: מְהַלֵּךְ אֶת כּוּלָּהּ. וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמְרִים: אֵין לוֹ אֶלָּא אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת.
Rav Huna, son of Rav Natan, said: The dispute between Shmuel and Rav Huna is parallel to a dispute between tanna’im recorded in the mishna: If the gentiles brought him to a different city beyond his Shabbat limit, or if they put him in a pen or a stable, the Sages disagree. Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya say: He may walk about the entire stable or pen. Since they are enclosed by a partition, their entire area is considered like only four cubits. Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Akiva say: He has only four cubits from where he was deposited.
מַאי לָאו, רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה דְּאָמְרוּ: מְהַלֵּךְ אֶת כּוּלָּהּ — דְּלָא גָּזְרִי הִילּוּךְ דִּיר וְסַהַר אַטּוּ הִילּוּךְ בְּבִקְעָה;
Is it not the case that Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, who said: He may walk about the entire area, do not prohibit walking in a pen or a stable due to walking in a field where one is limited to four cubits? Rather, they say that since the stable is surrounded by partitions, it is not similar to a field, in which a person may not leave his four cubits.
וּמִדְּהִילּוּךְ אַטּוּ הִילּוּךְ לָא גָּזְרִי, טִלְטוּל אַטּוּ הִילּוּךְ לָא גָּזְרִי.
And since they did not prohibit walking in a pen or a stable due to the limits imposed on walking in a field, they would certainly not prohibit carrying in a pen due to the limits imposed on walking in a field. Rather, they would permit a person to carry in a field that had been enclosed on Shabbat by gentiles, and even to throw into the part lying beyond his two thousand cubits, parallel to the opinion of Shmuel who did not decree against this.
וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא דְּאוֹמְרִים: אֵין לוֹ אֶלָּא אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת, דְּגָזְרִי הִילּוּךְ דִּיר וְסַהַר אַטּוּ הִילּוּךְ דְּבִקְעָהּ; וּמִדְּהִילּוּךְ אַטּוּ הִילּוּךְ גָּזְרִי, טִלְטוּל אַטּוּ הִילּוּךְ נָמֵי גָּזְרִי.
And is it not the case that Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Akiva, who say that he has only four cubits, prohibit walking in a pen or a stable due to the limits imposed on walking in a field? And since they prohibit walking in a pen or a stable due to the limits imposed on walking in a field, they would also prohibit carrying past the two thousand cubit limit by means of throwing due to the limits imposed on walking past there, in accordance with Rav Huna’s opinion.
מִמַּאי? דִּילְמָא כִּי לָא גָּזְרִי רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה הִילּוּךְ סַהַר וְדִיר אַטּוּ הִילּוּךְ בִּקְעָה, הָנֵי מִילֵּי הָתָם דִּשְׁנֵי מְקוֹמוֹת הֵן.
The Gemara rejects this comparison: From what do you infer that this is the case? Perhaps Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya did not prohibit walking in a pen or a stable due to the limits imposed on walking in a field, but this applies only there, because they are two distinct places. In other words, the pen and stable are enclosed by partitions, while the field is not, and there is no reason to prohibit walking in one place out of concern that one might come to act improperly in a different place.
אֲבָל טִלְטוּל אַטּוּ הִילּוּךְ דְּמָקוֹם אֶחָד הוּא, הָכִי נָמֵי דְּגָזְרִי, גְּזֵירָה שֶׁמָּא יִמָּשֵׁךְ אַחֵר חֶפְצוֹ.
However, as for the prohibition of carrying due to the limits imposed on walking, where it is all one place, might we also say that even Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya would decree against carrying as a preventive measure, lest the person be drawn after his object and come to walk in a place prohibited to him.
וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא נָמֵי, מִמַּאי דְּמִשּׁוּם דְּגָזְרִי הוּא? דִּילְמָא מִשּׁוּם דְּקָא סָבְרִי כִּי אָמְרִינַן כָּל הַבַּיִת כּוּלּוֹ כְּאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת דָּמֵי, הָנֵי מִילֵּי הֵיכָא דְּשָׁבַת בַּאֲוִיר מְחִיצּוֹת מִבְּעוֹד יוֹם.
The comparison can also be rejected from another angle: And with regard to Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Akiva too, from what can it be inferred that they prohibit walking beyond four cubits due to a decree? Perhaps it is because they hold that when we say that the entire house is considered like four cubits, this applies only where one acquired his place of residence within the airspace of the partitions of the house while it was still day, i.e., prior to the onset of Shabbat.
אֲבָל הֵיכָא דְּלֹא שָׁבַת בַּאֲוִיר מְחִיצּוֹת מִבְּעוֹד יוֹם — לָא.
However, where he did not acquire his place of residence within the airspace of the partitions of the house while it was still day, the house, and all the more so the stable or pen, is not considered as four cubits; rather, it is measured based on the actual number of cubits it contains. Based on this explanation, this ruling indicates nothing with regard to the issue of throwing beyond the two-thousand cubit limit. Consequently, the Gemara rejects the link between the dispute of the tanna’im in the mishna and that of Rav Naḥman and Rav Huna.
אָמַר רַב: הִלְכְתָא כְּרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל בְּדִיר וְסַהַר וּסְפִינָה. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: הִלְכְתָא כְּרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, בִּסְפִינָה, אֲבָל בְּדִיר וְסַהַר — לָא.
Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Gamliel with regard to a pen, a stable, and a boat. And Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Gamliel with regard to a boat, but not with regard to a stable or a pen.
דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא מִיהַת הֲלָכָה כְּרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל בִּסְפִינָה, מַאי טַעְמָא?
The Gemara poses a question: At any rate, all agree, i.e., both Rav and Shmuel, that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Gamliel with regard to a boat. What is the reason that the halakha is different in this case than in the other cases?
אָמַר רַבָּה: הוֹאִיל וְשָׁבַת בַּאֲוִיר מְחִיצּוֹת מִבְּעוֹד יוֹם.
Rabba said: This is since he acquired his place of residence within the partitions of the boat while it was still day, in which case it is reasonable to say that the entire boat is considered as if it is only four cubits.
רַבִּי זֵירָא אָמַר: הוֹאִיל וּסְפִינָה נוֹטַלְתּוֹ מִתְּחִילַּת אַרְבַּע וּמַנַּחְתּוֹ בְּסוֹף אַרְבַּע.
Rabbi Zeira said: This is since the boat constantly moves the person out of his four cubits, lifting him from the beginning of four cubits and placing him at the end of four cubits. Since in any case he cannot restrict himself to any particular four cubits, even if he wished to do so, it is reasonable to say that he is permitted to walk about the entire boat.
מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ שֶׁנִּפְחֲתוּ דּוֹפְנֵי סְפִינָה. אִי נָמֵי: בְּקוֹפֵץ מִסְּפִינָה לִסְפִינָה.
The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between these two explanations? The Gemara answers: There is a practical difference between them with regard to a case where the walls of the boat were breached, so that the person is no longer located between its partitions. Alternatively, there is a difference with regard to a case where the person jumped from one boat to another, so that he is no longer on the boat where he had acquired his place of residence. In both of these cases, Rabba’s reason no longer applies, but Rabbi Zeira’s reason does.
וְרַבִּי זֵירָא, מַאי טַעְמָא לָא אָמַר כְּרַבָּה? אָמַר לָךְ: מְחִיצּוֹת,
The Gemara asks: As for Rabbi Zeira, what is the reason that he did not state his opinion in accordance with the opinion of Rabba, whose explanation is more straightforward? The Gemara answers: He could have said to you: The sides of a boat are not regarded as proper partitions,
