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

Today's Daf Yomi

September 23, 2020 | 讛壮 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's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

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?

 

讜讛转谞谉 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 砖转讬诐 讬讻谞住 砖诇砖讛 诇讗 讬讻谞住 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 讜讛讜讗 讘讗诪爪注谉

Didn鈥檛 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?

讜讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讚讬讛讘讜 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 讻诪讗谉 讚诪讬讘诇注谉 讚诪讜 讜拽讗诪专 讬讻谞住 讗诇诪讗 讛讘诇注转 转讞讜诪讬谉 诪讬诇转讗 讛讬讗

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 诇讗讘讬讬 讜诪讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 拽诪讜转讘转 诇讬讛 诇诪专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 讚砖诪讬注 诇讬 诪讬谞讬讛 讚诪专 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 专讘谞谉 注诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗诇讗 诇讚讘专 讛专砖讜转 讗讘诇 诇讚讘专 诪爪讜讛 诪讜讚讜 诇讬讛:

Rabba bar bar 岣na said to Abaye: Do you raise an objection against our Master, Rabba, from the statement of Rabbi Eliezer? But isn鈥檛 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.

讜讻诇 讛讬讜爪讗讬谉 诇讛爪讬诇 讞讜讝专讬谉 诇诪拽讜诪谉: 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讟讜讘讗 讜讛讗 讗诪专转 专讬砖讗 讗诇驻讬诐 讗诪讛 讜转讜 诇讗

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鈥檛 the first clause say that a person who was permitted to travel beyond his Shabbat limit is allotted two thousand cubits, and no more?

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 砖讞讜讝专讬谉 讘讻诇讬 讝讬讬谉 诇诪拽讜诪谉 讜诪讗讬 拽讜砖讬讗 讚讬诇诪讗 诇讛爪讬诇 砖讗谞讬

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.

讗诇讗 讗讬 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 拽砖讬讗 讚转谞谉 讘专讗砖讜谞讛 诇讗 讛讬讜 讝讝讬谉 诪砖诐 讻诇 讛讬讜诐 讻讜诇讜

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.

讛转拽讬谉 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讛讝拽谉 砖讬砖 诇讛谉 讗诇驻讬诐 讗诪讛 诇讻诇 专讜讞 讜诇讗 讗诇讜 讘诇讘讚 讗诪专讜 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讞讻诪讛 讛讘讗讛 诇讬诇讚 讜讛讘讗 诇讛爪讬诇 诪谉 讛讙讬讬住 讜诪谉 讛谞讛专 讜诪谉 讛诪驻讜诇转 讜诪谉 讛讚诇讬拽讛 讛专讬 讛谉 讻讗谞砖讬 讛注讬专 讜讬砖 诇讛谉 讗诇驻讬诐 讗诪讛 诇讻诇 专讜讞

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.

讜转讜 诇讗 讜讛讗 讗诪专转 讻诇 讛讬讜爪讗讬谉 诇讛爪讬诇 讞讜讝专讬谉 诇诪拽讜诪谉 讗驻讬诇讜 讟讜讘讗

The question may be raised: Are they given no more than two thousand cubits? Didn鈥檛 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?

讗诪专 专讘 [讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘] 砖讞讜讝专讬谉 讘讻诇讬 讝讬讬谉 诇诪拽讜诪谉 讻讚转谞讬讗 讘专讗砖讜谞讛 讛讬讜 诪谞讬讞讬谉 讻诇讬 讝讬讬谞谉 讘讘讬转 讛住诪讜讱 诇讞讜诪讛

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.

驻注诐 讗讞转 讛讻讬专讜 讘讛谉 讗讜讬讘讬诐 讜专讚驻讜 讗讞专讬讛诐 讜谞讻谞住讜 诇讬讟讜诇 讻诇讬 讝讬讬谞谉 讜谞讻谞住讜 讗讜讬讘讬诐 讗讞专讬讛谉 讚讞拽讜 讝讛 讗转 讝讛 讜讛专讙讜 讝讛 讗转 讝讛 讬讜转专 诪诪讛 砖讛专讙讜 讗讜讬讘讬诐 讘讗讜转讛 砖注讛 讛转拽讬谞讜 砖讬讛讜 讞讜讝专讬谉 诇诪拽讜诪谉 讘讻诇讬 讝讬讬谞谉

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.

专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 砖谞爪讞讜 讬砖专讗诇 讗转 讗讜诪讜转 讛注讜诇诐 讻讗谉 砖谞爪讞讜 讗讜诪讜转 讛注讜诇诐 讗转 注爪诪谉

The Gemara cites an alternate resolution that Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k 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.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 谞讻专讬诐 砖爪专讜 注诇 注讬讬专讜转 讬砖专讗诇 讗讬谉 讬讜爪讗讬谉 注诇讬讛诐 讘讻诇讬 讝讬讬谞谉 讜讗讬谉 诪讞诇诇讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 讗转 讛砖讘转

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.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 谞讻专讬诐 砖爪专讜 讜讻讜壮 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讻砖讘讗讜 注诇 注住拽讬 诪诪讜谉 讗讘诇 讘讗讜 注诇 注住拽讬 谞驻砖讜转 讬讜爪讗讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 讘讻诇讬 讝讬讬谞谉 讜诪讞诇诇讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 讗转 讛砖讘转

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.

讜讘注讬专 讛住诪讜讻讛 诇住驻专 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讗 讘讗讜 注诇 注住拽讬 谞驻砖讜转 讗诇讗 注诇 注住拽讬 转讘谉 讜拽砖 讬讜爪讗讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 讘讻诇讬 讝讬讬谞谉 讜诪讞诇诇讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 讗转 讛砖讘转

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.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讘专 诪谞讬讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讜讘讘诇 讻注讬专 讛住诪讜讻讛 诇住驻专 讚诪讬讗 讜转专讙讜诪讗 谞讛专讚注讗

Rav Yosef bar Manyumi said that Rav Na岣an 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鈥檃, which was located near the border.

讚专砖 专讘讬 讚讜住转讗讬 讚诪谉 讘讬专讬 诪讗讬 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬讙讬讚讜 诇讚讜讚 诇讗诪专 讛谞讛 驻诇砖转讬诐 谞诇讞诪讬诐 讘拽注讬诇讛 讜讛诪讛 砖讜住讬诐 讗转 讛讙专谞讜转

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

转谞讗 拽注讬诇讛 注讬专 讛住诪讜讻讛 诇住驻专 讛讬转讛 讜讛诐 诇讗 讘讗讜 讗诇讗 注诇 注住拽讬 转讘谉 讜拽砖 讚讻转讬讘 讜讛诪讛 砖讜住讬诐 讗转 讛讙专谞讜转 讜讻转讬讘 讜讬砖讗诇 讚讜讚 讘讛壮 诇讗诪专 讛讗诇讱 讜讛讻讬转讬 讘驻诇砖转讬诐 讛讗诇讛 讜讬讗诪专 讛壮 讗诇 讚讜讚 诇讱 讜讛讻讬转 讘驻诇砖转讬诐 讜讛讜砖注转 讗转 拽注讬诇讛

It was taught in a baraita: Ke鈥檌la was a town located near the border, and the Philistines came only with regard to matters of hay and straw, as it is written: 鈥淎nd they rob the threshing floors.鈥 And in the next verse it is written: 鈥淭herefore 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鈥檌la鈥 (i Samuel 23:2), which indicates that war may be waged in a border town on Shabbat, even with regard to monetary matters.

诪讗讬 拽诪讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讗讬 砖专讬 讗讬 讗住讜专 讛专讬 讘讬转 讚讬谞讜 砖诇 砖诪讜讗诇 讛专诪转讬 拽讬讬诐

The Gemara refutes this proof by asking: What is David鈥檚 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.

讗诇讗 讗讬 诪爪诇讞 讗讬 诇讗 诪爪诇讞 讚讬拽讗 谞诪讬 讚讻转讬讘 诇讱 讜讛讻讬转 讘驻诇砖转讬诐 讜讛讜砖注转 讗转 拽注讬诇讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛:

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鈥檚 query: 鈥淕o and smite the Philistines, and save Ke鈥檌la.鈥 Learn from this, from the assurance that God gave David of his victory, that this was the subject of his inquiry.

诪转谞讬壮 诪讬 砖讬砖讘 讘讚专讱 讜注诪讚 讜专讗讛 讛专讬 (讝讛) 讛讜讗 住诪讜讱 诇注讬专 [讛讜讗讬诇] 讜诇讗 讛讬转讛 讻讜讜谞转讜 诇讻讱 诇讗 讬讻谞住 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专

MISHNA: With regard to a person who was sitting along the road on Shabbat eve toward nightfall, unaware that he was within the city鈥檚 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.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讬讻谞住 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪注砖讛 讛讬讛 讜谞讻谞住 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讘诇讗 诪转讻讜讬谉:

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.

讙诪壮 转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪注砖讛 讘专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 砖讛讬讛 诪讛诇讱 讘讚专讱 讜讞砖讻讛 诇讜 讜诇谉 讞讜抓 诇注讬专 诇砖讞专讬转 诪爪讗讜讛讜 专讜注讬 讘拽专 讗诪专讜 诇讜 专讘讬 讛专讬 讛注讬专 诇驻谞讬讱 讛讻谞住 谞讻谞住 讜讬砖讘 讘讘讬转 讛诪讚专砖 讜讚专砖 讻诇 讛讬讜诐 讻讜诇讜

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.

(讗诪专讜 诇讜) 诪砖诐 专讗讬讬讛 砖诪讗 讘诇讘讜 讛讬转讛 讗讜 讘讬转 讛诪讚专砖 诪讜讘诇注 讘转讜讱 转讞讜诪讜 讛讬讛:

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.

诪转谞讬壮 诪讬 砖讬砖谉 讘讚专讱 讜诇讗 讬讚注 砖讞砖讬讻讛 讬砖 诇讜 讗诇驻讬诐 讗诪讛 诇讻诇 专讜讞 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬

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 Yo岣nan ben Nuri, who maintains that knowledge and awareness are not necessary for one to acquire residence, but rather, a person鈥檚 presence in a given location establishes residence there.

讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 诇讜 讗诇讗 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讜讛讜讗 讘讗诪爪注谉

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.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诇讗讬讝讛 专讜讞 砖讬专爪讛 讬诇讱 讜诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 砖讗诐 讘讬专专 诇讜 砖讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇讞讝讜专 讘讜

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.

讛讬讜 砖谞讬诐 诪拽爪转 讗诪讜转讬讜 砖诇 讝讛 讘转讜讱 讗诪讜转讬讜 砖诇 讝讛 诪讘讬讗讬谉 讜讗讜讻诇讬谉 讘讗诪爪注

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,

讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬讜爪讬讗 讝讛 诪转讜讱 砖诇讜 诇转讜讱 砖诇 讞讘专讜

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

讛讬讜 砖诇砖讛 讜讛讗诪爪注讬 诪讜讘诇注 讘讬谞讬讛谉 讛讜讗 诪讜转专 注诪讛谉 讜讛谉 诪讜转专讬谉 注诪讜 讜砖谞讬诐 讛讞讬爪讜谞讬诐 讗住讜专讬谉 讝讛 注诐 讝讛

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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇诪讛 讛讚讘专 讚讜诪讛 诇砖诇砖 讞爪讬专讜转 讛驻转讜讞讜转 讝讜 诇讝讜 讜驻转讜讞讜转 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 注讬专讘讜 砖转讬诐 注诐 讛讗诪爪注讬转 讛讬讗 诪讜转专转 注诪讛谉 讜讛诐 诪讜转专讜转 注诪讛 讜砖转讬诐 讛讞讬爪讜谞讜转 讗住讜专讜转 讝讜 注诐 讝讜:

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.

讙诪壮 讘注讬 专讘讗 诪讗讬 拽住讘专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 诪住讘专 拽讗 住讘专 讞驻爪讬 讛驻拽专 拽讜谞讬谉 砖讘讬转讛

GEMARA: Rava raised a dilemma: What does Rabbi Yo岣nan 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?

讜讘讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讚诇讬驻诇讜讙 讘讻诇讬诐 讜讛讗 讚拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讘讗讚诐 诇讛讜讚讬注讱 讻讜讞谉 讚专讘谞谉 讚讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讛讜讗讬诇 讜谞讬注讜专 拽谞讛 讬砖谉 谞诪讬 拽谞讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚诇讗

And according to this understanding, Rabbi Yo岣nan 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 Yo岣nan 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.

讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 拽住讘专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 讘注诇诪讗 讞驻爪讬 讛驻拽专 讗讬谉 拽讜谞讬谉 砖讘讬转讛 讜讛讻讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜谞讬注讜专 拽谞讛 讬砖谉 谞诪讬 拽谞讛

Or perhaps we should understand his position differently, that in general Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 转讗 砖诪注 讙砖诪讬诐 砖讬专讚讜 诪注专讘 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讬砖 诇讛谉 讗诇驻讬诐 讗诪讛 诇讻诇 专讜讞 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讛专讬 讛谉 讻专讙诇讬 讻诇 讗讚诐

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.

讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 拽住讘专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 讞驻爪讬 讛驻拽专 拽讜谞讬谉 砖讘讬转讛 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讬讗

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

讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讞驻爪讬 讛驻拽专 讗讬谉 拽讜谞讬谉 砖讘讬转讛 讛讗 诪谞讬 诇讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜诇讗 专讘谞谉

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 Yo岣nan 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 Yo岣nan ben Nuri is of the opinion that ownerless objects acquire residence, and this baraita is in accordance with his opinion.

讬转讬讘 讗讘讬讬 讜拽讗诪专 诇讛 诇讛讗 砖诪注转讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 住驻专讗 诇讗讘讬讬 讜讚讬诇诪讗 讘讙砖诪讬诐 讛住诪讜讻讬谉 诇注讬专 注住拽讬谞谉 讜讗谞砖讬 讗讜转讛 讛注讬专 讚注转诐 注讬诇讬讬讛讜

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚转谞谉 讘讜专 砖诇 讬讞讬讚 讻专讙诇讬 讬讞讬讚 讜砖诇 讗讜转讛 讛注讬专 讻专讙诇讬 讗讜转讛 讛注讬专 讜砖诇 注讜诇讬 讘讘诇 讻专讙诇讬 讛诪诪诇讗

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.

讜转谞讬讗 讘讜专 砖诇 砖讘讟讬诐 讬砖 诇讛谉 讗诇驻讬诐 讗诪讛 诇讻诇 专讜讞 拽砖讬讬谉 讗讛讚讚讬

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.

讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讛讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 讛讗 专讘谞谉

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 Yo岣nan 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.

讻讬 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 专讘 住驻专讗 讜讛讻讬 讗讛讚专讬 诇讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讗诪讗讬 诇讗 转讬诪讗 诇讬讛 诪讙讜驻讛 讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讙砖诪讬诐 讛住诪讜讻讬谉 诇注讬专 注住拽讬谞谉 讛讗讬 讬砖 诇讛谉 讗诇驻讬诐 讗诪讛 诇讻诇 专讜讞

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?

讛讗 讻专讙诇讬 讗谞砖讬 讗讜转讛 讛注讬专 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛:

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 Yo岣nan ben Nuri, that ownerless objects acquire residence.

讗诪专 诪专 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讛专讬 讛谉 讻专讙诇讬 讻诇 讗讚诐 讜讗诪讗讬 诇讬拽谞讬 砖讘讬转讛 讘讗讜拽讬讬谞讜住

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.

诇讬诪讗 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚讗讬 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讗 讗诪专 讻诇 讛注讜诇诐 讻讜诇讜 诪诪讬 讗讜拽讬讬谞讜住 讛讜讗 砖讜转讛

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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讛讻讗 讘注讘讬诐 砖谞转拽砖专讜 诪注专讘 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 注住拽讬谞谉

Rabbi Yitz岣k 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.

讜讚讬诇诪讗 讛谞讱 讗讝诇讬 讜讛谞讱 讗讞专讬谞讬 谞讬谞讛讜 讚讗讬转 诇讛讜 住讬诪谞讗 讘讙讜讬讬讛讜

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.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讛讜讬 住驻拽 讚讚讘专讬讛诐 讜住驻拽 讚讚讘专讬讛诐 诇讛拽诇

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.

讜诇讬拽谞讬 砖讘讬转讛 讘注讘讬诐 转讬驻砖讜讟 诪讬谞讛 讚讗讬谉 转讞讜诪讬谉 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讛 讚讗讬 讬砖 转讞讜诪讬谉 诇讬拽谞讬 砖讘讬转讛 讘注讘讬诐

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.

诇注讜诇诐 讗讬诪讗 诇讱 讬砖 转讞讜诪讬谉 讜诪讬讗 讘注讬讘讗 诪讬讘诇注 讘诇讬注讬

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.

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

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 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

讜讛转谞谉 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 砖转讬诐 讬讻谞住 砖诇砖讛 诇讗 讬讻谞住 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 讜讛讜讗 讘讗诪爪注谉

Didn鈥檛 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?

讜讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讚讬讛讘讜 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 讻诪讗谉 讚诪讬讘诇注谉 讚诪讜 讜拽讗诪专 讬讻谞住 讗诇诪讗 讛讘诇注转 转讞讜诪讬谉 诪讬诇转讗 讛讬讗

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 诇讗讘讬讬 讜诪讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 拽诪讜转讘转 诇讬讛 诇诪专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 讚砖诪讬注 诇讬 诪讬谞讬讛 讚诪专 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 专讘谞谉 注诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗诇讗 诇讚讘专 讛专砖讜转 讗讘诇 诇讚讘专 诪爪讜讛 诪讜讚讜 诇讬讛:

Rabba bar bar 岣na said to Abaye: Do you raise an objection against our Master, Rabba, from the statement of Rabbi Eliezer? But isn鈥檛 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.

讜讻诇 讛讬讜爪讗讬谉 诇讛爪讬诇 讞讜讝专讬谉 诇诪拽讜诪谉: 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讟讜讘讗 讜讛讗 讗诪专转 专讬砖讗 讗诇驻讬诐 讗诪讛 讜转讜 诇讗

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鈥檛 the first clause say that a person who was permitted to travel beyond his Shabbat limit is allotted two thousand cubits, and no more?

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 砖讞讜讝专讬谉 讘讻诇讬 讝讬讬谉 诇诪拽讜诪谉 讜诪讗讬 拽讜砖讬讗 讚讬诇诪讗 诇讛爪讬诇 砖讗谞讬

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.

讗诇讗 讗讬 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 拽砖讬讗 讚转谞谉 讘专讗砖讜谞讛 诇讗 讛讬讜 讝讝讬谉 诪砖诐 讻诇 讛讬讜诐 讻讜诇讜

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.

讛转拽讬谉 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讛讝拽谉 砖讬砖 诇讛谉 讗诇驻讬诐 讗诪讛 诇讻诇 专讜讞 讜诇讗 讗诇讜 讘诇讘讚 讗诪专讜 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讞讻诪讛 讛讘讗讛 诇讬诇讚 讜讛讘讗 诇讛爪讬诇 诪谉 讛讙讬讬住 讜诪谉 讛谞讛专 讜诪谉 讛诪驻讜诇转 讜诪谉 讛讚诇讬拽讛 讛专讬 讛谉 讻讗谞砖讬 讛注讬专 讜讬砖 诇讛谉 讗诇驻讬诐 讗诪讛 诇讻诇 专讜讞

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.

讜转讜 诇讗 讜讛讗 讗诪专转 讻诇 讛讬讜爪讗讬谉 诇讛爪讬诇 讞讜讝专讬谉 诇诪拽讜诪谉 讗驻讬诇讜 讟讜讘讗

The question may be raised: Are they given no more than two thousand cubits? Didn鈥檛 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?

讗诪专 专讘 [讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘] 砖讞讜讝专讬谉 讘讻诇讬 讝讬讬谉 诇诪拽讜诪谉 讻讚转谞讬讗 讘专讗砖讜谞讛 讛讬讜 诪谞讬讞讬谉 讻诇讬 讝讬讬谞谉 讘讘讬转 讛住诪讜讱 诇讞讜诪讛

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.

驻注诐 讗讞转 讛讻讬专讜 讘讛谉 讗讜讬讘讬诐 讜专讚驻讜 讗讞专讬讛诐 讜谞讻谞住讜 诇讬讟讜诇 讻诇讬 讝讬讬谞谉 讜谞讻谞住讜 讗讜讬讘讬诐 讗讞专讬讛谉 讚讞拽讜 讝讛 讗转 讝讛 讜讛专讙讜 讝讛 讗转 讝讛 讬讜转专 诪诪讛 砖讛专讙讜 讗讜讬讘讬诐 讘讗讜转讛 砖注讛 讛转拽讬谞讜 砖讬讛讜 讞讜讝专讬谉 诇诪拽讜诪谉 讘讻诇讬 讝讬讬谞谉

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.

专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 砖谞爪讞讜 讬砖专讗诇 讗转 讗讜诪讜转 讛注讜诇诐 讻讗谉 砖谞爪讞讜 讗讜诪讜转 讛注讜诇诐 讗转 注爪诪谉

The Gemara cites an alternate resolution that Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k 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.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 谞讻专讬诐 砖爪专讜 注诇 注讬讬专讜转 讬砖专讗诇 讗讬谉 讬讜爪讗讬谉 注诇讬讛诐 讘讻诇讬 讝讬讬谞谉 讜讗讬谉 诪讞诇诇讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 讗转 讛砖讘转

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.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 谞讻专讬诐 砖爪专讜 讜讻讜壮 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讻砖讘讗讜 注诇 注住拽讬 诪诪讜谉 讗讘诇 讘讗讜 注诇 注住拽讬 谞驻砖讜转 讬讜爪讗讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 讘讻诇讬 讝讬讬谞谉 讜诪讞诇诇讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 讗转 讛砖讘转

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.

讜讘注讬专 讛住诪讜讻讛 诇住驻专 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讗 讘讗讜 注诇 注住拽讬 谞驻砖讜转 讗诇讗 注诇 注住拽讬 转讘谉 讜拽砖 讬讜爪讗讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 讘讻诇讬 讝讬讬谞谉 讜诪讞诇诇讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 讗转 讛砖讘转

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.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讘专 诪谞讬讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讜讘讘诇 讻注讬专 讛住诪讜讻讛 诇住驻专 讚诪讬讗 讜转专讙讜诪讗 谞讛专讚注讗

Rav Yosef bar Manyumi said that Rav Na岣an 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鈥檃, which was located near the border.

讚专砖 专讘讬 讚讜住转讗讬 讚诪谉 讘讬专讬 诪讗讬 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬讙讬讚讜 诇讚讜讚 诇讗诪专 讛谞讛 驻诇砖转讬诐 谞诇讞诪讬诐 讘拽注讬诇讛 讜讛诪讛 砖讜住讬诐 讗转 讛讙专谞讜转

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

转谞讗 拽注讬诇讛 注讬专 讛住诪讜讻讛 诇住驻专 讛讬转讛 讜讛诐 诇讗 讘讗讜 讗诇讗 注诇 注住拽讬 转讘谉 讜拽砖 讚讻转讬讘 讜讛诪讛 砖讜住讬诐 讗转 讛讙专谞讜转 讜讻转讬讘 讜讬砖讗诇 讚讜讚 讘讛壮 诇讗诪专 讛讗诇讱 讜讛讻讬转讬 讘驻诇砖转讬诐 讛讗诇讛 讜讬讗诪专 讛壮 讗诇 讚讜讚 诇讱 讜讛讻讬转 讘驻诇砖转讬诐 讜讛讜砖注转 讗转 拽注讬诇讛

It was taught in a baraita: Ke鈥檌la was a town located near the border, and the Philistines came only with regard to matters of hay and straw, as it is written: 鈥淎nd they rob the threshing floors.鈥 And in the next verse it is written: 鈥淭herefore 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鈥檌la鈥 (i Samuel 23:2), which indicates that war may be waged in a border town on Shabbat, even with regard to monetary matters.

诪讗讬 拽诪讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讗讬 砖专讬 讗讬 讗住讜专 讛专讬 讘讬转 讚讬谞讜 砖诇 砖诪讜讗诇 讛专诪转讬 拽讬讬诐

The Gemara refutes this proof by asking: What is David鈥檚 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.

讗诇讗 讗讬 诪爪诇讞 讗讬 诇讗 诪爪诇讞 讚讬拽讗 谞诪讬 讚讻转讬讘 诇讱 讜讛讻讬转 讘驻诇砖转讬诐 讜讛讜砖注转 讗转 拽注讬诇讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛:

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鈥檚 query: 鈥淕o and smite the Philistines, and save Ke鈥檌la.鈥 Learn from this, from the assurance that God gave David of his victory, that this was the subject of his inquiry.

诪转谞讬壮 诪讬 砖讬砖讘 讘讚专讱 讜注诪讚 讜专讗讛 讛专讬 (讝讛) 讛讜讗 住诪讜讱 诇注讬专 [讛讜讗讬诇] 讜诇讗 讛讬转讛 讻讜讜谞转讜 诇讻讱 诇讗 讬讻谞住 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专

MISHNA: With regard to a person who was sitting along the road on Shabbat eve toward nightfall, unaware that he was within the city鈥檚 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.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讬讻谞住 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪注砖讛 讛讬讛 讜谞讻谞住 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讘诇讗 诪转讻讜讬谉:

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.

讙诪壮 转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪注砖讛 讘专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 砖讛讬讛 诪讛诇讱 讘讚专讱 讜讞砖讻讛 诇讜 讜诇谉 讞讜抓 诇注讬专 诇砖讞专讬转 诪爪讗讜讛讜 专讜注讬 讘拽专 讗诪专讜 诇讜 专讘讬 讛专讬 讛注讬专 诇驻谞讬讱 讛讻谞住 谞讻谞住 讜讬砖讘 讘讘讬转 讛诪讚专砖 讜讚专砖 讻诇 讛讬讜诐 讻讜诇讜

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.

(讗诪专讜 诇讜) 诪砖诐 专讗讬讬讛 砖诪讗 讘诇讘讜 讛讬转讛 讗讜 讘讬转 讛诪讚专砖 诪讜讘诇注 讘转讜讱 转讞讜诪讜 讛讬讛:

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.

诪转谞讬壮 诪讬 砖讬砖谉 讘讚专讱 讜诇讗 讬讚注 砖讞砖讬讻讛 讬砖 诇讜 讗诇驻讬诐 讗诪讛 诇讻诇 专讜讞 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬

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 Yo岣nan ben Nuri, who maintains that knowledge and awareness are not necessary for one to acquire residence, but rather, a person鈥檚 presence in a given location establishes residence there.

讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 诇讜 讗诇讗 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讜讛讜讗 讘讗诪爪注谉

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.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诇讗讬讝讛 专讜讞 砖讬专爪讛 讬诇讱 讜诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 砖讗诐 讘讬专专 诇讜 砖讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇讞讝讜专 讘讜

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.

讛讬讜 砖谞讬诐 诪拽爪转 讗诪讜转讬讜 砖诇 讝讛 讘转讜讱 讗诪讜转讬讜 砖诇 讝讛 诪讘讬讗讬谉 讜讗讜讻诇讬谉 讘讗诪爪注

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,

讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬讜爪讬讗 讝讛 诪转讜讱 砖诇讜 诇转讜讱 砖诇 讞讘专讜

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

讛讬讜 砖诇砖讛 讜讛讗诪爪注讬 诪讜讘诇注 讘讬谞讬讛谉 讛讜讗 诪讜转专 注诪讛谉 讜讛谉 诪讜转专讬谉 注诪讜 讜砖谞讬诐 讛讞讬爪讜谞讬诐 讗住讜专讬谉 讝讛 注诐 讝讛

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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇诪讛 讛讚讘专 讚讜诪讛 诇砖诇砖 讞爪讬专讜转 讛驻转讜讞讜转 讝讜 诇讝讜 讜驻转讜讞讜转 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 注讬专讘讜 砖转讬诐 注诐 讛讗诪爪注讬转 讛讬讗 诪讜转专转 注诪讛谉 讜讛诐 诪讜转专讜转 注诪讛 讜砖转讬诐 讛讞讬爪讜谞讜转 讗住讜专讜转 讝讜 注诐 讝讜:

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.

讙诪壮 讘注讬 专讘讗 诪讗讬 拽住讘专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 诪住讘专 拽讗 住讘专 讞驻爪讬 讛驻拽专 拽讜谞讬谉 砖讘讬转讛

GEMARA: Rava raised a dilemma: What does Rabbi Yo岣nan 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?

讜讘讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讚诇讬驻诇讜讙 讘讻诇讬诐 讜讛讗 讚拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讘讗讚诐 诇讛讜讚讬注讱 讻讜讞谉 讚专讘谞谉 讚讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讛讜讗讬诇 讜谞讬注讜专 拽谞讛 讬砖谉 谞诪讬 拽谞讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚诇讗

And according to this understanding, Rabbi Yo岣nan 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 Yo岣nan 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.

讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 拽住讘专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 讘注诇诪讗 讞驻爪讬 讛驻拽专 讗讬谉 拽讜谞讬谉 砖讘讬转讛 讜讛讻讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜谞讬注讜专 拽谞讛 讬砖谉 谞诪讬 拽谞讛

Or perhaps we should understand his position differently, that in general Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 转讗 砖诪注 讙砖诪讬诐 砖讬专讚讜 诪注专讘 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讬砖 诇讛谉 讗诇驻讬诐 讗诪讛 诇讻诇 专讜讞 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讛专讬 讛谉 讻专讙诇讬 讻诇 讗讚诐

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.

讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 拽住讘专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 讞驻爪讬 讛驻拽专 拽讜谞讬谉 砖讘讬转讛 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讬讗

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

讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讞驻爪讬 讛驻拽专 讗讬谉 拽讜谞讬谉 砖讘讬转讛 讛讗 诪谞讬 诇讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜诇讗 专讘谞谉

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 Yo岣nan 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 Yo岣nan ben Nuri is of the opinion that ownerless objects acquire residence, and this baraita is in accordance with his opinion.

讬转讬讘 讗讘讬讬 讜拽讗诪专 诇讛 诇讛讗 砖诪注转讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 住驻专讗 诇讗讘讬讬 讜讚讬诇诪讗 讘讙砖诪讬诐 讛住诪讜讻讬谉 诇注讬专 注住拽讬谞谉 讜讗谞砖讬 讗讜转讛 讛注讬专 讚注转诐 注讬诇讬讬讛讜

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚转谞谉 讘讜专 砖诇 讬讞讬讚 讻专讙诇讬 讬讞讬讚 讜砖诇 讗讜转讛 讛注讬专 讻专讙诇讬 讗讜转讛 讛注讬专 讜砖诇 注讜诇讬 讘讘诇 讻专讙诇讬 讛诪诪诇讗

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.

讜转谞讬讗 讘讜专 砖诇 砖讘讟讬诐 讬砖 诇讛谉 讗诇驻讬诐 讗诪讛 诇讻诇 专讜讞 拽砖讬讬谉 讗讛讚讚讬

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.

讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讛讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 讛讗 专讘谞谉

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 Yo岣nan 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.

讻讬 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 专讘 住驻专讗 讜讛讻讬 讗讛讚专讬 诇讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讗诪讗讬 诇讗 转讬诪讗 诇讬讛 诪讙讜驻讛 讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讙砖诪讬诐 讛住诪讜讻讬谉 诇注讬专 注住拽讬谞谉 讛讗讬 讬砖 诇讛谉 讗诇驻讬诐 讗诪讛 诇讻诇 专讜讞

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?

讛讗 讻专讙诇讬 讗谞砖讬 讗讜转讛 讛注讬专 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛:

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 Yo岣nan ben Nuri, that ownerless objects acquire residence.

讗诪专 诪专 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讛专讬 讛谉 讻专讙诇讬 讻诇 讗讚诐 讜讗诪讗讬 诇讬拽谞讬 砖讘讬转讛 讘讗讜拽讬讬谞讜住

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.

诇讬诪讗 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚讗讬 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讗 讗诪专 讻诇 讛注讜诇诐 讻讜诇讜 诪诪讬 讗讜拽讬讬谞讜住 讛讜讗 砖讜转讛

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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讛讻讗 讘注讘讬诐 砖谞转拽砖专讜 诪注专讘 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 注住拽讬谞谉

Rabbi Yitz岣k 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.

讜讚讬诇诪讗 讛谞讱 讗讝诇讬 讜讛谞讱 讗讞专讬谞讬 谞讬谞讛讜 讚讗讬转 诇讛讜 住讬诪谞讗 讘讙讜讬讬讛讜

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.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讛讜讬 住驻拽 讚讚讘专讬讛诐 讜住驻拽 讚讚讘专讬讛诐 诇讛拽诇

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.

讜诇讬拽谞讬 砖讘讬转讛 讘注讘讬诐 转讬驻砖讜讟 诪讬谞讛 讚讗讬谉 转讞讜诪讬谉 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讛 讚讗讬 讬砖 转讞讜诪讬谉 诇讬拽谞讬 砖讘讬转讛 讘注讘讬诐

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.

诇注讜诇诐 讗讬诪讗 诇讱 讬砖 转讞讜诪讬谉 讜诪讬讗 讘注讬讘讗 诪讬讘诇注 讘诇讬注讬

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.

Scroll To Top