Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

September 23, 2020 | ה׳ בתשרי תשפ״א

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.

Eruvin 45

Today’s daf is sponsored by Natalie Taylor in honor of Betsy Mehlman. Wishing you a year of health and hatzlacha and nachat from your children and grandchildren.

Does everyone agree that overlapping techumim works? How can the last line of the mishna – that one who leaves the techum for saving someone can go back home – in light of the first line of the mishna that one only acquires 2,000 cubits from the new place? And even if one can say they are dealing with different situations, there is still a contradiction with the mishna in Rosh Hashana that says 2,000 cubits for all situations. The gemara brings two possible solutions, according to one of them, the mishna is dealing with carrying and not techum and is referring to carrying weapons home. The gemara brings a braita which explains in details why they permitted it. One can desecrate Shabbat and go out to fight against some sieges but not all. On what does it depend? If one is travelling and reaches an area near the city before Shabbat but doesn’t realize, is one considered as if one acquired the city for the purposes of techum, as if he/she would have known he/she was near the techum, he/she certainly would have wanted to be considered within the techum of the city – or does one actually need knowledge of it at the time. If one was asleep in a spot when Shabbat came in, can one acquire 2,000 cubits or does one need knowledge? Is the debate regarding this issue based on a debate about items that are ownerless, are they subject to laws of techumim or not? How can one prove that this is the debate between them? What is the status of rainwater? Is rainwater considered having come from out of the techum as it originates in the ocean?

 

והתנן רבי אליעזר אומר שתים יכנס שלשה לא יכנס מאי לאו רבי אליעזר לטעמיה דאמר והוא באמצען

Didn’t we learn in a mishna that Rabbi Eliezer says: If a person left his Shabbat limit by walking two cubits beyond it, he may reenter his original limit; but if he left his Shabbat limit by walking three cubits beyond it, he may not reenter. What, is it not that Rabbi Eliezer follows his standard line of reasoning, in that he said with regard to the four cubits a person is allotted wherever he is, he is set in the middle of them, i.e., he may walk two cubits in each direction?

וארבע אמות דיהבו ליה רבנן כמאן דמיבלען דמו וקאמר יכנס אלמא הבלעת תחומין מילתא היא

The Gemara explains that the four cubits that the Sages gave a person are regarded here as being subsumed within his original limit, and it is for this reason that he said: He may reenter his original limit. Apparently he is of the opinion that the subsuming of one Shabbat limit within another is something significant.

אמר ליה רבה בר בר חנה לאביי ומדרבי אליעזר קמותבת ליה למר אמר ליה אין דשמיע לי מיניה דמר עד כאן לא פליגי רבנן עליה דרבי אליעזר אלא לדבר הרשות אבל לדבר מצוה מודו ליה:

Rabba bar bar Ḥana said to Abaye: Do you raise an objection against our Master, Rabba, from the statement of Rabbi Eliezer? But isn’t the halakha in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer? Abaye said to him: Yes, as I heard from our Master himself that the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Eliezer only with regard to one who went beyond his limit for a voluntary matter, but with regard to one who went out for a mitzva matter, they agree with him about the subsuming of limits, i.e., that if one limit is subsumed in another, it is permitted to pass between them. This demonstrates that the halakha recognizes the principle of the subsuming of limits.

וכל היוצאין להציל חוזרין למקומן: ואפילו טובא והא אמרת רישא אלפים אמה ותו לא

The mishna teaches: All who go out to save lives may return to their original locations on Shabbat. The Gemara asks: Does this mean that he may return to his original place even if he went out more than two thousand cubits beyond his limit? Didn’t the first clause say that a person who was permitted to travel beyond his Shabbat limit is allotted two thousand cubits, and no more?

אמר רב יהודה אמר רב שחוזרין בכלי זיין למקומן ומאי קושיא דילמא להציל שאני

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: What this means is that they may return with their weapons to their original locations, provided they are within two thousand cubits. The Gemara asks: What is the difficulty with returning home in this situation? Perhaps in the case where people went out to fight and save lives the law is different, and they are allowed to go home even if they went more than two thousand cubits beyond the limit.

אלא אי קשיא הא קשיא דתנן בראשונה לא היו זזין משם כל היום כולו

Rather, if there is a difficulty, this is the difficulty: As we learned in a mishna in tractate Rosh HaShana, at first they would take the witnesses who had come to Jerusalem from a distant place on Shabbat to testify that they had seen the new moon, and bring them into a special courtyard, and they would not move from there the entire day. This was in accordance with the law governing one who was permitted to go out beyond his limit, as once he fulfilled his mission, he was no longer permitted to move beyond four cubits.

התקין רבן גמליאל הזקן שיש להן אלפים אמה לכל רוח ולא אלו בלבד אמרו אלא אפילו חכמה הבאה לילד והבא להציל מן הגייס ומן הנהר ומן המפולת ומן הדליקה הרי הן כאנשי העיר ויש להן אלפים אמה לכל רוח

However, Rabban Gamliel the Elder instituted that they should have two thousand cubits in each direction, so that witnesses not refrain from coming to testify. And it is not only these whom the Sages said are given two thousand cubits in the place that they have reached, but even a midwife who comes to deliver a child, and one who comes to rescue Jews from an invasion of gentile troops or from a river or a collapsed building or a fire; they are like the inhabitants of the town at which they arrive, and they have two thousand cubits in each direction.

ותו לא והא אמרת כל היוצאין להציל חוזרין למקומן אפילו טובא

The question may be raised: Are they given no more than two thousand cubits? Didn’t it say in the mishna: All who go out to save lives may return to their original locations on Shabbat, which indicates that they may walk even more than two thousand cubits?

אמר רב [יהודה אמר רב] שחוזרין בכלי זיין למקומן כדתניא בראשונה היו מניחין כלי זיינן בבית הסמוך לחומה

In response, Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: We must not infer from the mishna that they may go home even if they went out more than two thousand cubits from their limit, but rather that they may return with their weapons to their original locations, provided that they are within two thousand cubits. As it was taught in the Tosefta: At first those returning from a rescue mission would place their weapons in the first house that they encountered upon their return, i.e., the house nearest the wall, to avoid carrying on Shabbat any more than necessary.

פעם אחת הכירו בהן אויבים ורדפו אחריהם ונכנסו ליטול כלי זיינן ונכנסו אויבים אחריהן דחקו זה את זה והרגו זה את זה יותר ממה שהרגו אויבים באותה שעה התקינו שיהו חוזרין למקומן בכלי זיינן

Once, their enemies noticed that they were no longer carrying their weapons, and they chased after them; and the defenders entered the house to take up their weapons and fight, and their enemies entered after them, causing great confusion. In the chaos, the defenders began to push one another, and they killed more of each other than their enemies killed of them. At that time the Sages instituted that they should return to their locations, i.e., their destinations, with their weapons.

רב נחמן בר יצחק אמר לא קשיא כאן שנצחו ישראל את אומות העולם כאן שנצחו אומות העולם את עצמן

The Gemara cites an alternate resolution that Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: This is not difficult. Here, in the mishna in Rosh HaShana where they only permitted two thousand cubits, it is referring to a situation where the Jews defeated the nations of the world, i.e., the gentiles, in battle; in such a case there is no concern and they need not return to their original locations. Whereas here, in the mishna which indicates that the Sages permitted even more than two thousand cubits, it is referring to a situation where the nations of the world defeated themselves, i.e., the Jews, whom the Gemara refers to euphemistically as themselves; in such a case the Sages allowed the defeated soldiers to return to their original locations.

אמר רב יהודה אמר רב נכרים שצרו על עיירות ישראל אין יוצאין עליהם בכלי זיינן ואין מחללין עליהן את השבת

Since the Gemara discussed war on Shabbat, the Gemara cites Rav Yehuda, who said that Rav said: With regard to gentiles who besieged Jewish towns, they may not go out to fight against them with their weapons, nor may they desecrate Shabbat in any other way due to them, but rather they must wait until after Shabbat.

תניא נמי הכי נכרים שצרו וכו׳ במה דברים אמורים כשבאו על עסקי ממון אבל באו על עסקי נפשות יוצאין עליהן בכלי זיינן ומחללין עליהן את השבת

That was also taught in a baraita, with a caveat: With regard to gentiles who besieged, etc. In what case is this said? It is said in a case where the gentiles came and besieged the town with regard to monetary matters, i.e., banditry. However, if they came with regard to lives, i.e., there is concern that the gentiles will attack, they may go out against them with their weapons, and they may desecrate Shabbat due to them.

ובעיר הסמוכה לספר אפילו לא באו על עסקי נפשות אלא על עסקי תבן וקש יוצאין עליהן בכלי זיינן ומחללין עליהן את השבת

And with regard to a town that is located near the border, even if the gentiles did not come with regard to lives, but rather with regard to matters of hay and straw, i.e., to raid and spoil the town, they may go out against them with their weapons, and they may desecrate Shabbat due to them, as the border must be carefully guarded, in order to prevent enemies from gaining a foothold there.

אמר רב יוסף בר מניומי אמר רב נחמן ובבל כעיר הסמוכה לספר דמיא ותרגומא נהרדעא

Rav Yosef bar Manyumi said that Rav Naḥman said: And Babylonia is considered like a town located near the border, and war may be waged there on Shabbat even if the gentiles came for financial gain. And this means the city of Neharde’a, which was located near the border.

דרש רבי דוסתאי דמן בירי מאי דכתיב ויגידו לדוד לאמר הנה פלשתים נלחמים בקעילה והמה שוסים את הגרנות

Rabbi Dostai of the town of Biri expounded: What is the meaning of that which is written: “And they told David, saying: Behold, the Philistines are fighting against Ke’ila, and they rob the threshing floors” (i Samuel 23:1), after which David asked God how he should respond.

תנא קעילה עיר הסמוכה לספר היתה והם לא באו אלא על עסקי תבן וקש דכתיב והמה שוסים את הגרנות וכתיב וישאל דוד בה׳ לאמר האלך והכיתי בפלשתים האלה ויאמר ה׳ אל דוד לך והכית בפלשתים והושעת את קעילה

It was taught in a baraita: Ke’ila was a town located near the border, and the Philistines came only with regard to matters of hay and straw, as it is written: “And they rob the threshing floors.” And in the next verse it is written: “Therefore David inquired of the Lord, saying: Shall I go and smite these Philistines? And the Lord said to David: Go and smite the Philistines, and save Ke’ila” (i Samuel 23:2), which indicates that war may be waged in a border town on Shabbat, even with regard to monetary matters.

מאי קמבעיא ליה אילימא אי שרי אי אסור הרי בית דינו של שמואל הרמתי קיים

The Gemara refutes this proof by asking: What is David’s dilemma? If you say that he had a halakhic question and was in doubt whether it was permitted or prohibited to fight the Philistines on Shabbat, it is possible to respond: But the court of Samuel from Rama was then in existence, and rather than inquire by way of the Urim VeTummim he should have inquired of the Great Sanhedrin.

אלא אי מצלח אי לא מצלח דיקא נמי דכתיב לך והכית בפלשתים והושעת את קעילה שמע מינה:

Rather, he asked: Will he succeed or will he not succeed in his war? The Gemara comments: This is also precise in the language of the verse, as it is written in the response to David’s query: “Go and smite the Philistines, and save Ke’ila.” Learn from this, from the assurance that God gave David of his victory, that this was the subject of his inquiry.

מתני׳ מי שישב בדרך ועמד וראה הרי (זה) הוא סמוך לעיר [הואיל] ולא היתה כוונתו לכך לא יכנס דברי רבי מאיר

MISHNA: With regard to a person who was sitting along the road on Shabbat eve toward nightfall, unaware that he was within the city’s Shabbat limit, and when he stood up after Shabbat had already commenced, he saw that he was near the town, i.e., within its limit, since he had not intended to acquire his place of residence in the town, he may not enter it, but rather he measures two thousand cubits from his place; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

רבי יהודה אומר יכנס אמר רבי יהודה מעשה היה ונכנס רבי טרפון בלא מתכוין:

Rabbi Yehuda says: He may enter the town. Rabbi Yehuda said: It once happened that Rabbi Tarfon entered a town on Shabbat without intention from the beginning of Shabbat to establish residence in the city.

גמ׳ תניא אמר רבי יהודה מעשה ברבי טרפון שהיה מהלך בדרך וחשכה לו ולן חוץ לעיר לשחרית מצאוהו רועי בקר אמרו לו רבי הרי העיר לפניך הכנס נכנס וישב בבית המדרש ודרש כל היום כולו

GEMARA: It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda said: It once happened that Rabbi Tarfon was walking along the way on Shabbat eve, and night fell upon him, and he spent the night outside the town. In the morning, cowherds who came to graze their cattle outside the town found him and said to him: Master, the town is before you; enter. He entered and sat in the study hall and taught the entire day. This indicates that one is permitted to enter.

(אמרו לו) משם ראייה שמא בלבו היתה או בית המדרש מובלע בתוך תחומו היה:

The other Rabbis said to Rabbi Yehuda: Do you bring proof from there? Perhaps he had it in mind the day before to acquire residence in the city, or perhaps the study hall was subsumed within his Shabbat limit. If the study hall was within two thousand cubits of the spot where he established residence, all agree that he may enter there.

מתני׳ מי שישן בדרך ולא ידע שחשיכה יש לו אלפים אמה לכל רוח דברי רבי יוחנן בן נורי

MISHNA: With regard to one who was sleeping along the road on Shabbat eve and did not know that night had fallen, he has two thousand cubits in each direction; this is the statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri, who maintains that knowledge and awareness are not necessary for one to acquire residence, but rather, a person’s presence in a given location establishes residence there.

וחכמים אומרים אין לו אלא ארבע אמות רבי אליעזר אומר והוא באמצען

But the Rabbis say: He has only four cubits, as since he did not knowingly acquire residence, he did not establish a Shabbat limit. Rabbi Eliezer says: He has only four cubits total and he is in the middle of them, i.e., he has two cubits in each direction.

רבי יהודה אומר לאיזה רוח שירצה ילך ומודה רבי יהודה שאם בירר לו שאינו יכול לחזור בו

Rabbi Yehuda says: He may walk four cubits in any direction he wishes. But Rabbi Yehuda agrees that if he selected for himself the direction in which he wants to walk those four cubits, he cannot retract and walk four cubits in a different direction.

היו שנים מקצת אמותיו של זה בתוך אמותיו של זה מביאין ואוכלין באמצע

With regard to a case where there were two people in this situation, positioned in such a way that part of the four cubits of one were subsumed within the four cubits of the other, they may each bring food and eat together in the shared area in the middle,

ובלבד שלא יוציא זה מתוך שלו לתוך של חברו

provided that the one does not carry anything from his four-cubit limit into that of his fellow.

היו שלשה והאמצעי מובלע ביניהן הוא מותר עמהן והן מותרין עמו ושנים החיצונים אסורין זה עם זה

With regard to a case where there were three people in this situation, and certain parts of the four cubits of the middle one were subsumed within the respective limits of each of the others, so that he shared a certain area with each of them, he is permitted to eat with either of them, and they are both permitted to eat with him; but the two outer ones are forbidden to eat with each other, since they share no common area.

אמר רבי שמעון למה הדבר דומה לשלש חצירות הפתוחות זו לזו ופתוחות לרשות הרבים עירבו שתים עם האמצעית היא מותרת עמהן והם מותרות עמה ושתים החיצונות אסורות זו עם זו:

Rabbi Shimon said: To what is this comparable? It is like three courtyards that open into one another, and also open into a public domain. If the two outer courtyards established an eiruv with the middle one, the middle one is permitted to carry to the two outer ones, and they are permitted to carry to it, but the two outer courtyards are prohibited to carry from one to the other, as they did not establish an eiruv with one another.

גמ׳ בעי רבא מאי קסבר רבי יוחנן בן נורי מסבר קא סבר חפצי הפקר קונין שביתה

GEMARA: Rava raised a dilemma: What does Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri hold? Does he hold that ownerless objects acquire residence for Shabbat, i.e., even an article that does not belong to anyone acquires residence at the onset of Shabbat and can therefore be carried two thousand cubits in each direction?

ובדין הוא דליפלוג בכלים והא דקמיפלגי באדם להודיעך כוחן דרבנן דאף על גב דאיכא למימר הואיל וניעור קנה ישן נמי קנה קא משמע לן דלא

And according to this understanding, Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri should by right have disagreed with the Rabbis even about utensils that were left in the field, i.e., that according to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri, ownerless utensils can be moved two thousand cubits in each direction. And the reason that they disagreed about a person is to convey the far-reaching nature of the stringent ruling of the Rabbis, that although there is room to say: Since a person who is awake acquires for himself two thousand cubits, he also acquires them if he is sleeping, the mishna nonetheless teaches us that the Rabbis did not accept this argument, and this is why the dispute is taught specifically with respect to a person.

או דילמא קסבר רבי יוחנן בן נורי בעלמא חפצי הפקר אין קונין שביתה והכא היינו טעמא הואיל וניעור קנה ישן נמי קנה

Or perhaps we should understand his position differently, that in general Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri holds that ownerless objects do not acquire residence of their own. But here, with regard to a person, the reason is as follows: Since a person who is awake acquires for himself two thousand cubits, he also acquires them if he is sleeping.

אמר רב יוסף תא שמע גשמים שירדו מערב יום טוב יש להן אלפים אמה לכל רוח ביום טוב הרי הן כרגלי כל אדם

Rav Yosef said: Come and hear a solution to this dilemma from the following baraita: Rain that fell on the eve of a Festival has two thousand cubits in each direction, meaning that one is permitted to carry the rainwater within a radius of two thousand cubits. But if the rain fell on the Festival itself, it is like the feet of all people, as it did not acquire residence, and consequently one is permitted to carry this water wherever he is permitted to walk.

אי אמרת בשלמא קסבר רבי יוחנן בן נורי חפצי הפקר קונין שביתה הא מני רבי יוחנן היא

Granted, it is understandable if you say that Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri holds that ownerless objects acquire residence; in accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is that of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri, and consequently the rain that fell on the eve of the Festival acquired residence in the spot where it fell.

אלא אי אמרת חפצי הפקר אין קונין שביתה הא מני לא רבי יוחנן ולא רבנן

However, if you say that he maintains that ownerless objects do not acquire residence, in accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? Neither that of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri, nor that of the Rabbis, as it clearly indicates that rain acquires a place of residence even though it has no owner. Rather, we must say that Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri is of the opinion that ownerless objects acquire residence, and this baraita is in accordance with his opinion.

יתיב אביי וקאמר לה להא שמעתא אמר ליה רב ספרא לאביי ודילמא בגשמים הסמוכין לעיר עסקינן ואנשי אותה העיר דעתם עילייהו

Abaye sat and recited this tradition. Rav Safra said to Abaye: Perhaps we are dealing with rain that fell near a city, and the inhabitants of that city had it in mind, and that is why it acquires two thousand cubits in each direction.

אמר ליה לא סלקא דעתך דתנן בור של יחיד כרגלי יחיד ושל אותה העיר כרגלי אותה העיר ושל עולי בבל כרגלי הממלא

Abaye said to him: It should not enter your mind that such an understanding is correct, as we learned in a mishna: A cistern that belongs to an individual, its water is like the feet of that individual, the owner of the cistern, in that it may be carried wherever he is permitted to walk. And a cistern that belongs to a particular city, its water is like the feet of the people of that city, in that it may be carried wherever the inhabitants of that city may walk, i.e., two thousand cubits in each direction from the city. And a cistern that belongs to pilgrims from Babylonia on the way to Eretz Yisrael, meaning that it belongs to all Jews and has no particular owner, its water is like the feet of the one who draws the water, in that it may be carried wherever he is permitted to walk.

ותניא בור של שבטים יש להן אלפים אמה לכל רוח קשיין אהדדי

And it was taught in a baraita: A cistern that belongs to one of the tribes and has no particular owner, its water has two thousand cubits in each direction. If so, these two sources contradict each other, as the mishna teaches that water that belongs to the entire community does not establish residence, whereas the tanna of the baraita holds that it may be carried two thousand cubits from its place.

אלא לאו שמע מינה הא רבי יוחנן בן נורי הא רבנן

Rather, in order to resolve the contradiction, learn from here: This source, which states that the water may be carried two thousand cubits, was taught in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri, who says that even ownerless objects acquire residence; that source, which states that water that does not belong to any particular person is like the feet of the one who draws it, was taught in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who say that ownerless objects do not acquire residence.

כי אתא לקמיה דרב יוסף אמר ליה הכי קאמר רב ספרא והכי אהדרי ליה אמר ליה ואמאי לא תימא ליה מגופה אי סלקא דעתך גשמים הסמוכין לעיר עסקינן האי יש להן אלפים אמה לכל רוח

The Gemara relates that when Abaye came before Rav Yosef, he said to him: This is what Rav Safra said, and this is what I answered him. Rav Yosef said to him: And why did you not answer him from the baraita itself? If it should enter your mind that we are dealing with rain that fell near a city, how can you understand the statement that the rainwater has two thousand cubits in each direction?

הא כרגלי אנשי אותה העיר מיבעיא ליה:

According to your understanding, that the rainwater may be carried two thousand cubits because the inhabitants of the town had it in mind, the baraita should have said: The rainwater is like the feet of the inhabitants of that city. Rather, you must say that the inhabitants of the city did not acquire the water and that it may be carried within a radius of two thousand cubits, because the baraita was taught in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri, that ownerless objects acquire residence.

אמר מר ביום טוב הרי הן כרגלי כל אדם ואמאי ליקני שביתה באוקיינוס

The Gemara further examines the baraita cited earlier. The Master said: If rain fell on the Festival itself, it is like the feet of all people. The Gemara raises a difficulty: And why should this be? The water should have acquired residence in the ocean [okeyanos], where it was when the Festival began. And since the water went out on the Festival beyond its limit after it evaporated and formed into clouds, moving the water more than four cubits should be prohibited.

לימא דלא כרבי אליעזר דאי כרבי אליעזר הא אמר כל העולם כולו ממי אוקיינוס הוא שותה

Let us say that this baraita was taught not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. Because if it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, he said: The entire world drinks from the waters of the ocean; that is to say, evaporated ocean water is the source of rain.

אמר רבי יצחק הכא בעבים שנתקשרו מערב יום טוב עסקינן

Rabbi Yitzḥak said: Here we are dealing with clouds that were already formed on the eve of the Festival. Since these clouds were already formed before the Festival, the water did not acquire residence in the ocean or travel beyond its limit on the Festival.

ודילמא הנך אזלי והנך אחריני נינהו דאית להו סימנא בגוייהו

The Gemara asks: But perhaps those clouds that had already been formed on the eve of the Festival went away, and these clouds, from which the rain fell, are others that did acquire residence in the ocean? The Gemara answers: We are dealing here with a case where there is an identifying sign that these are the same clouds and not others.

ואיבעית אימא הוי ספק דדבריהם וספק דדבריהם להקל

And if you wish, say that there is another reason we are not concerned that these might be other clouds: This matter of whether or not they are the same clouds pertains to an uncertainty with respect to a rabbinic law, and the principle is that with regard to an uncertainty concerning a rabbinic law, one may follow the lenient understanding.

וליקני שביתה בעבים תיפשוט מינה דאין תחומין למעלה מעשרה דאי יש תחומין ליקני שביתה בעבים

The Gemara asks: Let the water acquire residence in the clouds, where it was when the Festival began, and its limit should be measured from there. Since the baraita taught that the water is like the feet of all people, if so, resolve from here another dilemma, and say that there is no prohibition of Shabbat limits above ten handbreadths, and one is permitted to travel more than two thousand cubits above this height. For if there is a prohibition of Shabbat limits above ten handbreadths, let the water acquire residence in the clouds.

לעולם אימא לך יש תחומין ומיא בעיבא מיבלע בליעי

The Gemara rejects this argument: Actually, I can say to you: There is a prohibition of Shabbat limits even above ten handbreadths, and the water does not acquire residence in the clouds because it is absorbed in the clouds. Since water does not exist in its usual state within the clouds, but rather takes on a different form, it does not acquire residence there.

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.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

one week at a time with tamara spitz

Eruvin 45-51 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

This week we will discuss key concepts in Daf 45-51 including if you fell asleep before Shabbat and woke up...

Eruvin 45

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Eruvin 45

והתנן רבי אליעזר אומר שתים יכנס שלשה לא יכנס מאי לאו רבי אליעזר לטעמיה דאמר והוא באמצען

Didn’t we learn in a mishna that Rabbi Eliezer says: If a person left his Shabbat limit by walking two cubits beyond it, he may reenter his original limit; but if he left his Shabbat limit by walking three cubits beyond it, he may not reenter. What, is it not that Rabbi Eliezer follows his standard line of reasoning, in that he said with regard to the four cubits a person is allotted wherever he is, he is set in the middle of them, i.e., he may walk two cubits in each direction?

וארבע אמות דיהבו ליה רבנן כמאן דמיבלען דמו וקאמר יכנס אלמא הבלעת תחומין מילתא היא

The Gemara explains that the four cubits that the Sages gave a person are regarded here as being subsumed within his original limit, and it is for this reason that he said: He may reenter his original limit. Apparently he is of the opinion that the subsuming of one Shabbat limit within another is something significant.

אמר ליה רבה בר בר חנה לאביי ומדרבי אליעזר קמותבת ליה למר אמר ליה אין דשמיע לי מיניה דמר עד כאן לא פליגי רבנן עליה דרבי אליעזר אלא לדבר הרשות אבל לדבר מצוה מודו ליה:

Rabba bar bar Ḥana said to Abaye: Do you raise an objection against our Master, Rabba, from the statement of Rabbi Eliezer? But isn’t the halakha in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer? Abaye said to him: Yes, as I heard from our Master himself that the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Eliezer only with regard to one who went beyond his limit for a voluntary matter, but with regard to one who went out for a mitzva matter, they agree with him about the subsuming of limits, i.e., that if one limit is subsumed in another, it is permitted to pass between them. This demonstrates that the halakha recognizes the principle of the subsuming of limits.

וכל היוצאין להציל חוזרין למקומן: ואפילו טובא והא אמרת רישא אלפים אמה ותו לא

The mishna teaches: All who go out to save lives may return to their original locations on Shabbat. The Gemara asks: Does this mean that he may return to his original place even if he went out more than two thousand cubits beyond his limit? Didn’t the first clause say that a person who was permitted to travel beyond his Shabbat limit is allotted two thousand cubits, and no more?

אמר רב יהודה אמר רב שחוזרין בכלי זיין למקומן ומאי קושיא דילמא להציל שאני

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: What this means is that they may return with their weapons to their original locations, provided they are within two thousand cubits. The Gemara asks: What is the difficulty with returning home in this situation? Perhaps in the case where people went out to fight and save lives the law is different, and they are allowed to go home even if they went more than two thousand cubits beyond the limit.

אלא אי קשיא הא קשיא דתנן בראשונה לא היו זזין משם כל היום כולו

Rather, if there is a difficulty, this is the difficulty: As we learned in a mishna in tractate Rosh HaShana, at first they would take the witnesses who had come to Jerusalem from a distant place on Shabbat to testify that they had seen the new moon, and bring them into a special courtyard, and they would not move from there the entire day. This was in accordance with the law governing one who was permitted to go out beyond his limit, as once he fulfilled his mission, he was no longer permitted to move beyond four cubits.

התקין רבן גמליאל הזקן שיש להן אלפים אמה לכל רוח ולא אלו בלבד אמרו אלא אפילו חכמה הבאה לילד והבא להציל מן הגייס ומן הנהר ומן המפולת ומן הדליקה הרי הן כאנשי העיר ויש להן אלפים אמה לכל רוח

However, Rabban Gamliel the Elder instituted that they should have two thousand cubits in each direction, so that witnesses not refrain from coming to testify. And it is not only these whom the Sages said are given two thousand cubits in the place that they have reached, but even a midwife who comes to deliver a child, and one who comes to rescue Jews from an invasion of gentile troops or from a river or a collapsed building or a fire; they are like the inhabitants of the town at which they arrive, and they have two thousand cubits in each direction.

ותו לא והא אמרת כל היוצאין להציל חוזרין למקומן אפילו טובא

The question may be raised: Are they given no more than two thousand cubits? Didn’t it say in the mishna: All who go out to save lives may return to their original locations on Shabbat, which indicates that they may walk even more than two thousand cubits?

אמר רב [יהודה אמר רב] שחוזרין בכלי זיין למקומן כדתניא בראשונה היו מניחין כלי זיינן בבית הסמוך לחומה

In response, Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: We must not infer from the mishna that they may go home even if they went out more than two thousand cubits from their limit, but rather that they may return with their weapons to their original locations, provided that they are within two thousand cubits. As it was taught in the Tosefta: At first those returning from a rescue mission would place their weapons in the first house that they encountered upon their return, i.e., the house nearest the wall, to avoid carrying on Shabbat any more than necessary.

פעם אחת הכירו בהן אויבים ורדפו אחריהם ונכנסו ליטול כלי זיינן ונכנסו אויבים אחריהן דחקו זה את זה והרגו זה את זה יותר ממה שהרגו אויבים באותה שעה התקינו שיהו חוזרין למקומן בכלי זיינן

Once, their enemies noticed that they were no longer carrying their weapons, and they chased after them; and the defenders entered the house to take up their weapons and fight, and their enemies entered after them, causing great confusion. In the chaos, the defenders began to push one another, and they killed more of each other than their enemies killed of them. At that time the Sages instituted that they should return to their locations, i.e., their destinations, with their weapons.

רב נחמן בר יצחק אמר לא קשיא כאן שנצחו ישראל את אומות העולם כאן שנצחו אומות העולם את עצמן

The Gemara cites an alternate resolution that Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: This is not difficult. Here, in the mishna in Rosh HaShana where they only permitted two thousand cubits, it is referring to a situation where the Jews defeated the nations of the world, i.e., the gentiles, in battle; in such a case there is no concern and they need not return to their original locations. Whereas here, in the mishna which indicates that the Sages permitted even more than two thousand cubits, it is referring to a situation where the nations of the world defeated themselves, i.e., the Jews, whom the Gemara refers to euphemistically as themselves; in such a case the Sages allowed the defeated soldiers to return to their original locations.

אמר רב יהודה אמר רב נכרים שצרו על עיירות ישראל אין יוצאין עליהם בכלי זיינן ואין מחללין עליהן את השבת

Since the Gemara discussed war on Shabbat, the Gemara cites Rav Yehuda, who said that Rav said: With regard to gentiles who besieged Jewish towns, they may not go out to fight against them with their weapons, nor may they desecrate Shabbat in any other way due to them, but rather they must wait until after Shabbat.

תניא נמי הכי נכרים שצרו וכו׳ במה דברים אמורים כשבאו על עסקי ממון אבל באו על עסקי נפשות יוצאין עליהן בכלי זיינן ומחללין עליהן את השבת

That was also taught in a baraita, with a caveat: With regard to gentiles who besieged, etc. In what case is this said? It is said in a case where the gentiles came and besieged the town with regard to monetary matters, i.e., banditry. However, if they came with regard to lives, i.e., there is concern that the gentiles will attack, they may go out against them with their weapons, and they may desecrate Shabbat due to them.

ובעיר הסמוכה לספר אפילו לא באו על עסקי נפשות אלא על עסקי תבן וקש יוצאין עליהן בכלי זיינן ומחללין עליהן את השבת

And with regard to a town that is located near the border, even if the gentiles did not come with regard to lives, but rather with regard to matters of hay and straw, i.e., to raid and spoil the town, they may go out against them with their weapons, and they may desecrate Shabbat due to them, as the border must be carefully guarded, in order to prevent enemies from gaining a foothold there.

אמר רב יוסף בר מניומי אמר רב נחמן ובבל כעיר הסמוכה לספר דמיא ותרגומא נהרדעא

Rav Yosef bar Manyumi said that Rav Naḥman said: And Babylonia is considered like a town located near the border, and war may be waged there on Shabbat even if the gentiles came for financial gain. And this means the city of Neharde’a, which was located near the border.

דרש רבי דוסתאי דמן בירי מאי דכתיב ויגידו לדוד לאמר הנה פלשתים נלחמים בקעילה והמה שוסים את הגרנות

Rabbi Dostai of the town of Biri expounded: What is the meaning of that which is written: “And they told David, saying: Behold, the Philistines are fighting against Ke’ila, and they rob the threshing floors” (i Samuel 23:1), after which David asked God how he should respond.

תנא קעילה עיר הסמוכה לספר היתה והם לא באו אלא על עסקי תבן וקש דכתיב והמה שוסים את הגרנות וכתיב וישאל דוד בה׳ לאמר האלך והכיתי בפלשתים האלה ויאמר ה׳ אל דוד לך והכית בפלשתים והושעת את קעילה

It was taught in a baraita: Ke’ila was a town located near the border, and the Philistines came only with regard to matters of hay and straw, as it is written: “And they rob the threshing floors.” And in the next verse it is written: “Therefore David inquired of the Lord, saying: Shall I go and smite these Philistines? And the Lord said to David: Go and smite the Philistines, and save Ke’ila” (i Samuel 23:2), which indicates that war may be waged in a border town on Shabbat, even with regard to monetary matters.

מאי קמבעיא ליה אילימא אי שרי אי אסור הרי בית דינו של שמואל הרמתי קיים

The Gemara refutes this proof by asking: What is David’s dilemma? If you say that he had a halakhic question and was in doubt whether it was permitted or prohibited to fight the Philistines on Shabbat, it is possible to respond: But the court of Samuel from Rama was then in existence, and rather than inquire by way of the Urim VeTummim he should have inquired of the Great Sanhedrin.

אלא אי מצלח אי לא מצלח דיקא נמי דכתיב לך והכית בפלשתים והושעת את קעילה שמע מינה:

Rather, he asked: Will he succeed or will he not succeed in his war? The Gemara comments: This is also precise in the language of the verse, as it is written in the response to David’s query: “Go and smite the Philistines, and save Ke’ila.” Learn from this, from the assurance that God gave David of his victory, that this was the subject of his inquiry.

מתני׳ מי שישב בדרך ועמד וראה הרי (זה) הוא סמוך לעיר [הואיל] ולא היתה כוונתו לכך לא יכנס דברי רבי מאיר

MISHNA: With regard to a person who was sitting along the road on Shabbat eve toward nightfall, unaware that he was within the city’s Shabbat limit, and when he stood up after Shabbat had already commenced, he saw that he was near the town, i.e., within its limit, since he had not intended to acquire his place of residence in the town, he may not enter it, but rather he measures two thousand cubits from his place; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

רבי יהודה אומר יכנס אמר רבי יהודה מעשה היה ונכנס רבי טרפון בלא מתכוין:

Rabbi Yehuda says: He may enter the town. Rabbi Yehuda said: It once happened that Rabbi Tarfon entered a town on Shabbat without intention from the beginning of Shabbat to establish residence in the city.

גמ׳ תניא אמר רבי יהודה מעשה ברבי טרפון שהיה מהלך בדרך וחשכה לו ולן חוץ לעיר לשחרית מצאוהו רועי בקר אמרו לו רבי הרי העיר לפניך הכנס נכנס וישב בבית המדרש ודרש כל היום כולו

GEMARA: It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda said: It once happened that Rabbi Tarfon was walking along the way on Shabbat eve, and night fell upon him, and he spent the night outside the town. In the morning, cowherds who came to graze their cattle outside the town found him and said to him: Master, the town is before you; enter. He entered and sat in the study hall and taught the entire day. This indicates that one is permitted to enter.

(אמרו לו) משם ראייה שמא בלבו היתה או בית המדרש מובלע בתוך תחומו היה:

The other Rabbis said to Rabbi Yehuda: Do you bring proof from there? Perhaps he had it in mind the day before to acquire residence in the city, or perhaps the study hall was subsumed within his Shabbat limit. If the study hall was within two thousand cubits of the spot where he established residence, all agree that he may enter there.

מתני׳ מי שישן בדרך ולא ידע שחשיכה יש לו אלפים אמה לכל רוח דברי רבי יוחנן בן נורי

MISHNA: With regard to one who was sleeping along the road on Shabbat eve and did not know that night had fallen, he has two thousand cubits in each direction; this is the statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri, who maintains that knowledge and awareness are not necessary for one to acquire residence, but rather, a person’s presence in a given location establishes residence there.

וחכמים אומרים אין לו אלא ארבע אמות רבי אליעזר אומר והוא באמצען

But the Rabbis say: He has only four cubits, as since he did not knowingly acquire residence, he did not establish a Shabbat limit. Rabbi Eliezer says: He has only four cubits total and he is in the middle of them, i.e., he has two cubits in each direction.

רבי יהודה אומר לאיזה רוח שירצה ילך ומודה רבי יהודה שאם בירר לו שאינו יכול לחזור בו

Rabbi Yehuda says: He may walk four cubits in any direction he wishes. But Rabbi Yehuda agrees that if he selected for himself the direction in which he wants to walk those four cubits, he cannot retract and walk four cubits in a different direction.

היו שנים מקצת אמותיו של זה בתוך אמותיו של זה מביאין ואוכלין באמצע

With regard to a case where there were two people in this situation, positioned in such a way that part of the four cubits of one were subsumed within the four cubits of the other, they may each bring food and eat together in the shared area in the middle,

ובלבד שלא יוציא זה מתוך שלו לתוך של חברו

provided that the one does not carry anything from his four-cubit limit into that of his fellow.

היו שלשה והאמצעי מובלע ביניהן הוא מותר עמהן והן מותרין עמו ושנים החיצונים אסורין זה עם זה

With regard to a case where there were three people in this situation, and certain parts of the four cubits of the middle one were subsumed within the respective limits of each of the others, so that he shared a certain area with each of them, he is permitted to eat with either of them, and they are both permitted to eat with him; but the two outer ones are forbidden to eat with each other, since they share no common area.

אמר רבי שמעון למה הדבר דומה לשלש חצירות הפתוחות זו לזו ופתוחות לרשות הרבים עירבו שתים עם האמצעית היא מותרת עמהן והם מותרות עמה ושתים החיצונות אסורות זו עם זו:

Rabbi Shimon said: To what is this comparable? It is like three courtyards that open into one another, and also open into a public domain. If the two outer courtyards established an eiruv with the middle one, the middle one is permitted to carry to the two outer ones, and they are permitted to carry to it, but the two outer courtyards are prohibited to carry from one to the other, as they did not establish an eiruv with one another.

גמ׳ בעי רבא מאי קסבר רבי יוחנן בן נורי מסבר קא סבר חפצי הפקר קונין שביתה

GEMARA: Rava raised a dilemma: What does Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri hold? Does he hold that ownerless objects acquire residence for Shabbat, i.e., even an article that does not belong to anyone acquires residence at the onset of Shabbat and can therefore be carried two thousand cubits in each direction?

ובדין הוא דליפלוג בכלים והא דקמיפלגי באדם להודיעך כוחן דרבנן דאף על גב דאיכא למימר הואיל וניעור קנה ישן נמי קנה קא משמע לן דלא

And according to this understanding, Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri should by right have disagreed with the Rabbis even about utensils that were left in the field, i.e., that according to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri, ownerless utensils can be moved two thousand cubits in each direction. And the reason that they disagreed about a person is to convey the far-reaching nature of the stringent ruling of the Rabbis, that although there is room to say: Since a person who is awake acquires for himself two thousand cubits, he also acquires them if he is sleeping, the mishna nonetheless teaches us that the Rabbis did not accept this argument, and this is why the dispute is taught specifically with respect to a person.

או דילמא קסבר רבי יוחנן בן נורי בעלמא חפצי הפקר אין קונין שביתה והכא היינו טעמא הואיל וניעור קנה ישן נמי קנה

Or perhaps we should understand his position differently, that in general Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri holds that ownerless objects do not acquire residence of their own. But here, with regard to a person, the reason is as follows: Since a person who is awake acquires for himself two thousand cubits, he also acquires them if he is sleeping.

אמר רב יוסף תא שמע גשמים שירדו מערב יום טוב יש להן אלפים אמה לכל רוח ביום טוב הרי הן כרגלי כל אדם

Rav Yosef said: Come and hear a solution to this dilemma from the following baraita: Rain that fell on the eve of a Festival has two thousand cubits in each direction, meaning that one is permitted to carry the rainwater within a radius of two thousand cubits. But if the rain fell on the Festival itself, it is like the feet of all people, as it did not acquire residence, and consequently one is permitted to carry this water wherever he is permitted to walk.

אי אמרת בשלמא קסבר רבי יוחנן בן נורי חפצי הפקר קונין שביתה הא מני רבי יוחנן היא

Granted, it is understandable if you say that Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri holds that ownerless objects acquire residence; in accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is that of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri, and consequently the rain that fell on the eve of the Festival acquired residence in the spot where it fell.

אלא אי אמרת חפצי הפקר אין קונין שביתה הא מני לא רבי יוחנן ולא רבנן

However, if you say that he maintains that ownerless objects do not acquire residence, in accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? Neither that of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri, nor that of the Rabbis, as it clearly indicates that rain acquires a place of residence even though it has no owner. Rather, we must say that Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri is of the opinion that ownerless objects acquire residence, and this baraita is in accordance with his opinion.

יתיב אביי וקאמר לה להא שמעתא אמר ליה רב ספרא לאביי ודילמא בגשמים הסמוכין לעיר עסקינן ואנשי אותה העיר דעתם עילייהו

Abaye sat and recited this tradition. Rav Safra said to Abaye: Perhaps we are dealing with rain that fell near a city, and the inhabitants of that city had it in mind, and that is why it acquires two thousand cubits in each direction.

אמר ליה לא סלקא דעתך דתנן בור של יחיד כרגלי יחיד ושל אותה העיר כרגלי אותה העיר ושל עולי בבל כרגלי הממלא

Abaye said to him: It should not enter your mind that such an understanding is correct, as we learned in a mishna: A cistern that belongs to an individual, its water is like the feet of that individual, the owner of the cistern, in that it may be carried wherever he is permitted to walk. And a cistern that belongs to a particular city, its water is like the feet of the people of that city, in that it may be carried wherever the inhabitants of that city may walk, i.e., two thousand cubits in each direction from the city. And a cistern that belongs to pilgrims from Babylonia on the way to Eretz Yisrael, meaning that it belongs to all Jews and has no particular owner, its water is like the feet of the one who draws the water, in that it may be carried wherever he is permitted to walk.

ותניא בור של שבטים יש להן אלפים אמה לכל רוח קשיין אהדדי

And it was taught in a baraita: A cistern that belongs to one of the tribes and has no particular owner, its water has two thousand cubits in each direction. If so, these two sources contradict each other, as the mishna teaches that water that belongs to the entire community does not establish residence, whereas the tanna of the baraita holds that it may be carried two thousand cubits from its place.

אלא לאו שמע מינה הא רבי יוחנן בן נורי הא רבנן

Rather, in order to resolve the contradiction, learn from here: This source, which states that the water may be carried two thousand cubits, was taught in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri, who says that even ownerless objects acquire residence; that source, which states that water that does not belong to any particular person is like the feet of the one who draws it, was taught in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who say that ownerless objects do not acquire residence.

כי אתא לקמיה דרב יוסף אמר ליה הכי קאמר רב ספרא והכי אהדרי ליה אמר ליה ואמאי לא תימא ליה מגופה אי סלקא דעתך גשמים הסמוכין לעיר עסקינן האי יש להן אלפים אמה לכל רוח

The Gemara relates that when Abaye came before Rav Yosef, he said to him: This is what Rav Safra said, and this is what I answered him. Rav Yosef said to him: And why did you not answer him from the baraita itself? If it should enter your mind that we are dealing with rain that fell near a city, how can you understand the statement that the rainwater has two thousand cubits in each direction?

הא כרגלי אנשי אותה העיר מיבעיא ליה:

According to your understanding, that the rainwater may be carried two thousand cubits because the inhabitants of the town had it in mind, the baraita should have said: The rainwater is like the feet of the inhabitants of that city. Rather, you must say that the inhabitants of the city did not acquire the water and that it may be carried within a radius of two thousand cubits, because the baraita was taught in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri, that ownerless objects acquire residence.

אמר מר ביום טוב הרי הן כרגלי כל אדם ואמאי ליקני שביתה באוקיינוס

The Gemara further examines the baraita cited earlier. The Master said: If rain fell on the Festival itself, it is like the feet of all people. The Gemara raises a difficulty: And why should this be? The water should have acquired residence in the ocean [okeyanos], where it was when the Festival began. And since the water went out on the Festival beyond its limit after it evaporated and formed into clouds, moving the water more than four cubits should be prohibited.

לימא דלא כרבי אליעזר דאי כרבי אליעזר הא אמר כל העולם כולו ממי אוקיינוס הוא שותה

Let us say that this baraita was taught not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. Because if it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, he said: The entire world drinks from the waters of the ocean; that is to say, evaporated ocean water is the source of rain.

אמר רבי יצחק הכא בעבים שנתקשרו מערב יום טוב עסקינן

Rabbi Yitzḥak said: Here we are dealing with clouds that were already formed on the eve of the Festival. Since these clouds were already formed before the Festival, the water did not acquire residence in the ocean or travel beyond its limit on the Festival.

ודילמא הנך אזלי והנך אחריני נינהו דאית להו סימנא בגוייהו

The Gemara asks: But perhaps those clouds that had already been formed on the eve of the Festival went away, and these clouds, from which the rain fell, are others that did acquire residence in the ocean? The Gemara answers: We are dealing here with a case where there is an identifying sign that these are the same clouds and not others.

ואיבעית אימא הוי ספק דדבריהם וספק דדבריהם להקל

And if you wish, say that there is another reason we are not concerned that these might be other clouds: This matter of whether or not they are the same clouds pertains to an uncertainty with respect to a rabbinic law, and the principle is that with regard to an uncertainty concerning a rabbinic law, one may follow the lenient understanding.

וליקני שביתה בעבים תיפשוט מינה דאין תחומין למעלה מעשרה דאי יש תחומין ליקני שביתה בעבים

The Gemara asks: Let the water acquire residence in the clouds, where it was when the Festival began, and its limit should be measured from there. Since the baraita taught that the water is like the feet of all people, if so, resolve from here another dilemma, and say that there is no prohibition of Shabbat limits above ten handbreadths, and one is permitted to travel more than two thousand cubits above this height. For if there is a prohibition of Shabbat limits above ten handbreadths, let the water acquire residence in the clouds.

לעולם אימא לך יש תחומין ומיא בעיבא מיבלע בליעי

The Gemara rejects this argument: Actually, I can say to you: There is a prohibition of Shabbat limits even above ten handbreadths, and the water does not acquire residence in the clouds because it is absorbed in the clouds. Since water does not exist in its usual state within the clouds, but rather takes on a different form, it does not acquire residence there.

Join Hadran Communities! Connect with women learning in your area.

Scroll To Top