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

Today's Daf Yomi

September 30, 2020 | 讬状讘 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 sponsored by聽the students at the Emerging Scholars of Yeshivat Maharat in聽honor of Rabbanit Michelle and all your work!

Eruvin 52

The gemara brings a case in which Raba bar Rav Chanan acquires residence from afar from his house without going to the location. Abaye questions his actions based on the conclusions reached at the end of the previous section and Raba changes his behavior. If one acquires residence with food, does one get in addition to the 2,000 cubits’ also 4 cubits like in the case where one is there physically or not? The mishna brings a case of one who went to put an eruv but got called back by someone. The eruv works anyway for that person but not for the people of the city, according to Rabbi Yehuda. What exactly is the case? Why is there a difference between the person and others? Does the person need to make a declaration or is the intent clear without a declaration? Rabbi Meir doesn’t allow this – however the person is only allowed to walk in the space that is common to one’s house and the place where one intended to put the eruv. Rabbi Yosi son of Rabbi Yehuda has a different, more lenient approach. Raba and Rav Yosef disagree as to how he differs from Rabbi Yehuda’s approach. If one leaves the techum by one or two cubits, is one allowed back in? What if one foot is in and one is out? Are the limits the surveyors put up at 2,000 cubits around the city exact or do they make them less than 2,000 to make sure people don’t err? What is the relevance of this for one who hasn’t reached the techum before Shabbat? How does one measure from around the city in the event that there aren’t walls and all the houses don’t line up in an exact straight line?

讗诪专 转讛讗 砖讘讬转转讬 讘爪讬谞转讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诪讗讬 讚注转讬讱 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘诪拽讜诐 驻诇讜谞讬

He would declare on Shabbat eve: My residence is in Tzinta, a settlement located between the Shabbat limits of the two places. Abaye said to him: What is your opinion that led you to act in that manner? Is it because in a dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and Rav 岣sda said: The dispute between these two Sages is in a case where the person said: My residence is in such-and-such place, and you rely on Rabbi Yehuda and establish residence at a place between the two cities even though you are still at home?

讜讛讗 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讜转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讚专讬 讘讬

But didn鈥檛 Rav Na岣an explain the dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda differently, and furthermore, a baraita was taught in accordance with his opinion. Rabba bar Rav 岣nan said to him: I retract my opinion and will no longer do so.

讗诪专 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讛专讬 讗诪专讜 砖讘转 讬砖 诇讜 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讛谞讜转谉 讗转 注讬专讜讘讜 讬砖 诇讜 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讗讜 诇讗

Rami bar 岣ma said: The Sages have said that one who establishes residence by foot has four cubits at that location, and another two thousand cubits beyond. However, with regard to one who deposits his eiruv in a certain place, there is a dilemma whether he has four cubits from the site of his eiruv, or not.

讗诪专 专讘讗 转讗 砖诪注 诇讗 讗诪专讜 诪注专讘讬谉 讘驻转 讗诇讗 诇讛拽诇 注诇 讛注砖讬专 砖诇讗 讬爪讗 讜讬注专讘 讘专讙诇讬讜 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 讗讬谉 诇讜 讛讗讬 诇讛拽诇 诇讛讞诪讬专 讛讜讗

Rava said: Come and hear a resolution from the mishna: The Sages said that one establishes an eiruv with bread only to be lenient with the wealthy person, so that he need not exert himself and go out and establish an eiruv with his feet. And if you say that one who establishes an eiruv with bread does not have four cubits, is this really a leniency? It is a stringency. Based on the mishna, apparently, all leniencies that apply to one who establishes an eiruv by foot must also apply to one who establishes an eiruv with bread.

讗驻讬诇讜 讛讻讬 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讗 谞讟专讞 讜谞讬驻讜拽:

The Gemara rejects this argument: No proof can be cited from there, as even if he without the four cubits, this is preferable to him, so that he need not exert himself and go out and establish an eiruv by foot. Therefore, it can be said that establishing an eiruv with bread constitutes a leniency even if it entails the loss of four cubits.

诪转谞讬壮 诪讬 砖讬爪讗 诇讬诇讱 讘注讬专 砖诪注专讘讬谉 讘讛 讜讛讞讝讬专讜 讞讘讬专讜 讛讜讗 诪讜转专 诇讬诇讱 讜讻诇 讘谞讬 讛注讬专 讗住讜专讬谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

MISHNA: If a person set out to go on a Shabbat eve to a town for which an eiruv is established in order to go there on Shabbat, and another person caused him to return home, he himself is permitted to go to that city on Shabbat, and for all the other residents of the town it is prohibited to go there. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讬讻讜诇 诇注专讘 讜诇讗 注讬专讘 讛专讬 讝讛 讞诪专 讙诪诇:

Rabbi Meir says: Anyone who can establish an eiruv, and negated his residence in his original place, and did not establish an eiruv, i.e., he did not at least state that he seeks to establish residence somewhere else, is likened to both a donkey driver, who walks behind the animal and prods it, and a camel driver, who walks before the animal and leads it, in the sense that he is pulled in two opposite directions. Due to the uncertainty with regard to the location of his Shabbat limit, his movement is restricted as though his residence was established in both his city and at a location along the way to the other city. He may not venture beyond two thousand cubits from either location.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讗讬讛讜 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讗讬谞讛讜 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖讬砖 诇讜 砖谞讬 讘转讬诐 讜讘讬谞讬讛谉 砖谞讬 转讞讜诪讬 砖讘转

GEMARA: With regard to the mishna鈥檚 statement that according to Rabbi Yehuda, he himself is permitted to go to the other city, while for all the rest of the residents of his city it is prohibited to do so, the Gemara asks: What is different about him and what is different about them? Why is he permitted to proceed to the other city, while they are not? Rav Huna said: We are dealing here with a case where that person has two houses, one in each town, with the distance of two Shabbat limits, four thousand cubits, between them.

讗讬讛讜 讻讬讜谉 讚谞驻拽 诇讬讛 诇讗讜专讞讗 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 注谞讬 讜讛谞讬 注砖讬专讬 谞讬谞讛讜

With regard to him, since he set out on his way, his legal status is that of a pauper, as he did not intend to return to his first house but to continue to his other house, and he can therefore establish residence at the end of his Shabbat limit simply by declaring that he wishes to acquire residence in such-and-such place. And the legal status of these other inhabitants of his city, is that of wealthy people, as they are in their houses and have food. Consequently, they can only establish residence at the end of their Shabbat limit by depositing food there prior the onset of Shabbat.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 诪讬 砖讬砖 诇讜 砖谞讬 讘转讬诐 讜讘讬谞讬讛谉 砖谞讬 转讞讜诪讬 砖讘转 讻讬讜谉 砖讛讞讝讬拽 讘讚专讱 拽谞讛 注讬专讜讘 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

That was also taught in a baraita: With regard to one who has two houses, with the distance of two Shabbat limits between them, once he set out on the way, clearly demonstrating his intention to leave, although he did not explicitly say: My residence is at the end of my Shabbat limit, he acquired an eiruv there. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

讬转专 注诇 讻谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗驻讬诇讜 诪爪讗讜 讞讘讬专讜 讜讗诪专 诇讜 诇讬谉 驻讛 注转 讞诪讛 讛讜讗 注转 爪讬谞讛 讛讜讗 诇诪讞专 诪砖讻讬诐 讜讛讜诇讱

Furthermore, Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda said: Even if another found him before he left, and said to him: Spend the night here, it is a hot period, or it is a cold period and inadvisable to set out now, on the following day he may rise early and go to the other town, as his intention to walk is sufficient.

讗诪专 专讘讛 诇讜诪专 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚爪专讬讱 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 诇讛讞讝讬拽

Rabba said: With regard to saying that he is establishing residence at the end of his Shabbat limit, everyone agrees that this is necessary, as otherwise it could be understood that he is returning to his house because he changed his mind about establishing residence elsewhere. When they disagree is with regard to whether or not it is necessary for him actually to set out on his way. Rabbi Yehuda maintains that he must have set out on his way, whereas Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, maintains that he need not even set out on his way, as his intention to leave is sufficient.

讜专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 诇讛讞讝讬拽 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚爪专讬讱 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 诇讜诪专

And Rav Yosef said: With regard to actually setting out on his way, everyone agrees that this is necessary. Where they disagree is with regard to whether or not it is necessary for him to say that he is establishing his residence at the end of his Shabbat limit.

讻诪讗谉 讗讝诇讗 讛讗 讚讗诪专 注讜诇讗 诪讬 砖讛讞讝讬拽 讘讚专讱 讜讛讞讝讬专讜 讞讘讬专讜 讛专讬 讛讜讗 诪讜讞讝专 讜诪讜讞讝拽

The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is this halakha that Ulla stated? If a person set out on his way, and another persuaded him to return home, he is considered returned and is considered set out on his way.

讗讬 诪讜讞讝专 诇诪讛 诪讜讞讝拽 讜讗讬 诪讜讞讝拽 诇诪讛 诪讜讞讝专

The Gemara analyzes Ulla鈥檚 statement itself: If he is considered returned, with the same legal status as the rest of the residents of his city and has not established residence elsewhere, why is he described as set out on his way? And if he is considered set out on his way, indicating that he established residence at the end of his Shabbat limit, why is he described as returned?

讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诪讜讞讝专 诪讜讞讝拽 讻诪讗谉 讻专讘 讬讜住祝 讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

The Gemara answers: Emend Ulla鈥檚 statement and explain that this is what he is saying: Although he was returned to his original place, he is nonetheless regarded as having set out on his way. In accordance with whose opinion did he state this ruling? According to the opinion of Rav Yosef, that everyone agrees he must set out on his way, and in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, that he need not declare he is establishing his residence at the end of his Shabbat limit.

专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专 讗讬砖转转讗 讗讬讬转讬 诇讬讛 讻诇讻诇讛 讚驻讬专讬 诇专讘 谞转谉 讘专 讗讜砖注讬讗 讻讬 讛讜讛 讗讝讬诇 砖讘拽讬讛 注讚 讚谞讞讬转 讚专讙讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘讬转 讛讻讗 诇诪讞专 拽讚讬诐 讜讗讝讬诇

The Gemara relates that Rav Yehuda bar Ishtata once brought a basket of fruit to Rav Natan bar Oshaya in a nearby town, four thousand cubits away, on Shabbat eve. When he was going, Rav Natan left him until he descended one step, and then said to him: Lodge here tonight. He allowed him start his journey so that he would be considered as having set out on his way. On the following day Rav Yehuda bar Ishtata rose early and went home.

讻诪讗谉 讻专讘 讬讜住祝 讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛

The Gemara comments: In accordance with whose opinion did Rav Natan bar Oshaya act? Apparently, it was in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yosef that everyone agrees that he must set out on his way, and in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda that he need not declare that he is establishing his residence at the end of his Shabbat limit.

诇讗 讻专讘讛 讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛:

The Gemara rejects this suggestion: No, that is not necessarily so, as it is possible to say that he acted according to the opinion of Rabba, and in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and Rav Yehuda bar Ishtata declared that he establishes his residence at the end of his Shabbat limit.

专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讻诇 砖讬讻讜诇 诇注专讘 讻讜壮: 讛讗 转谞讬谞讗 讞讚讗 讝讬诪谞讗 住驻拽 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛专讬 讝讛 讞诪专 讙诪诇

We learned in the mishna that Rabbi Meir says: Anyone who can establish an eiruv, and negated his residence in his original place, and did not establish an eiruv, is likened to both a donkey driver and a camel driver. The Gemara asks: Didn鈥檛 we have already learned it once before in another mishna: In a case of uncertainty, Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda say: This person is likened to both a donkey driver and a camel driver. Here too, it is obvious that the same applies, as that is Rabbi Meir鈥檚 opinion with regard to all uncertain cases.

讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 诇讗 转讬诪讗 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 住驻拽 注讬专讘 住驻拽 诇讗 注讬专讘 讛讜讗 讚讛讜讬 讞诪专 讙诪诇 讗讘诇 讜讚讗讬 诇讗 注讬专讘 诇讗 讛讜讬 讞诪专 讙诪诇

Rav Sheshet said: It is necessary to state this ruling here as well, so that you will not say the reason for Rabbi Meir鈥檚 statement only applies in a case where there is uncertainty whether one established an eiruv or did not establish an eiruv, and in that case he is in likened to both a donkey driver and a camel driver. However, in a case where there is certainty that he did not establish an eiruv he is not likened to both a donkey driver and a camel driver, but his Shabbat limit is the same as the rest of the residents of his city.

讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讜讚讗讬 诇讗 注讬专讘 讛讜讬 讞诪专 讙诪诇 讚讛讗 讛讻讗 讜讚讗讬 诇讗 注讬专讘 讜拽讗 讛讜讬 讞诪专 讙诪诇:

Rather, say that even in a case where there is certainty that he did not establish an eiruv he is sometimes likened to both a donkey driver and a camel driver, as here he certainly did not establish an eiruv, and yet he is likened to both a donkey driver and a camel driver. It was therefore necessary to state that even in that case, where there is no uncertainty whether or not he established the eiruv, but only with regard to the location of his residence, he nonetheless has the status of both a donkey driver and a camel driver.

诪转谞讬壮 诪讬 砖讬爪讗 讞讜抓 诇转讞讜诐 讗驻讬诇讜 讗诪讛 讗讞转 诇讗 讬讻谞住 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 砖转讬诐 讬讻谞住 砖诇砖 诇讗 讬讻谞住:

MISHNA: One who intentionally, not for the purpose of performing a mitzva, went out beyond his Shabbat limit, even if only one cubit, may not reenter. Rabbi Eliezer says: If he went out two cubits he may reenter; however, if he went out three cubits he may not reenter.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 专讙诇讜 讗讞转 讘转讜讱 讛转讞讜诐 讜专讙诇讜 讗讞转 讞讜抓 诇转讞讜诐 诇讗 讬讻谞住 讚讻转讬讘 讗诐 转砖讬讘 诪砖讘转 专讙诇讱 专讙诇讱 讻转讬讘

GEMARA: Rabbi 岣nina said: If one of his feet was within the Shabbat limit, and his other foot was beyond the Shabbat limit, he may not reenter, as it is written: 鈥淚f you turn away your feet [raglekha] due to Shabbat鈥 (Isaiah 58:13). The word raglekha is written in defective form without the letter yod, and can therefore be read as your foot in the singular, indicating that Shabbat can be desecrated by the reentry of even a single foot.

讜讛转谞讬讗 专讙诇讜 讗讞转 讘转讜讱 讛转讞讜诐 讜专讙诇讜 讗讞转 讞讜抓 诇转讞讜诐 讬讻谞住 讛讗 诪谞讬 讗讞专讬诐 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讗讞专讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇诪拽讜诐 砖专讜讘讜 讛讜讗 谞讝拽专

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But wasn鈥檛 the opposite taught in a baraita? If one of his feet was within the Shabbat limit, and his other foot was beyond the Shabbat limit, he may reenter. The Gemara answers: In accordance with whose opinion is this taught? It is in accordance with the opinion of A岣rim, as it was taught in a baraita: A岣rim say: He is attributed to the place where the majority of his body lies, and therefore, it is permitted for him to enter, as he stepped out with only one foot.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 专讙诇讜 讗讞转 讘转讜讱 讛转讞讜诐 讜专讙诇讜 讗讞转 讞讜抓 诇转讞讜诐 讬讻谞住 讚讻转讬讘 讗诐 转砖讬讘 诪砖讘转 专讙诇讱 专讙诇讬讱 拽专讬谞谉

The Gemara cites a different version of the previous discussion. Some say that Rabbi 岣nina said: If one of his feet was within the Shabbat limit, and his other foot was beyond the Shabbat limit, he may reenter, as it is written: 鈥淚f you turn away your feet due to Shabbat鈥 (Isaiah 58:13). We read the word raglekha as your feet, in the plural, indicating that the entry of a single foot is permitted.

讜讛转谞讬讗 诇讗 讬讻谞住 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 讻讗讞专讬诐 讚转谞讬讗 诇诪拽讜诐 砖专讜讘讜 讛讜讗 谞讝拽专:

The Gemara raises a difficulty. But wasn鈥檛 the opposite taught in a baraita: He may not reenter? The Gemara answers: Rabbi 岣nina stated his opinion in accordance with the opinion of A岣rim, as it was taught in a baraita: He is attributed to the place where the majority of his body is located, and it is therefore permitted to enter, as most of his body remains within the Shabbat limit.

专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 砖转讬诐 讬讻谞住 砖诇砖 诇讗 讬讻谞住: 讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗讞转 讬讻谞住 砖转讬诐 诇讗 讬讻谞住 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚注拽专 讞讚讗 讜拽诐 讗转专转讬 讛讗 讚注拽专 转专转讬 讜拽诐 讗转诇转

We learned in the mishna that Rabbi Eliezer says: If he went out two cubits he may reenter; however, if he went out three cubits he may not reenter. The Gemara asks: But wasn鈥檛 it taught otherwise in a baraita? Rabbi Eliezer says: If he went out one cubit he may reenter; however, if he went out two cubits he may not reenter. The Gemara answers: That is not a difficulty. This, the mishna, is referring to a case where he moved from the first cubit and is now standing two cubits out, and therefore it is permitted for him to reenter; however, that, the baraita, is referring to a case where he moved from the second cubit and is now standing three cubits out. Consequently, it is prohibited for him to reenter.

讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讗诪讛 讗讞转 诇讗 讬讻谞住 讻讬 转谞讬讗 讛讛讬讗 诇诪讜讚讚 讚转谞谉 讜诇诪讜讚讚 砖讗诪专讜 谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讜 讗诇驻讬诐 讗诪讛 讗驻讬诇讜 住讜祝 诪讚转讜 讻诇讛 讘诪注专讛:

The Gemara raises another difficulty. But wasn鈥檛 it taught in a different baraita that Rabbi Eliezer says: Even if he went one cubit out, he may not enter. The Gemara answers: When that baraita was taught it was with regard to one measuring his limit by counting two thousand steps. As we learned in a mishna: And for one established residence in a particular place, and is now measuring his limit by counting out steps, with regard to whom the Sages said one provides him with two thousand cubits, even if his measurement ended in a cave he may not walk even one cubit beyond his measurement.

诪转谞讬壮 诪讬 砖讛讞砖讬讱 讞讜抓 诇转讞讜诐 讗驻讬诇讜 讗诪讛 讗讞转 诇讗 讬讻谞住 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讞诪砖 注砖专讛 讗诪讜转 讬讻谞住 砖讗讬谉 讛诪砖讜讞讜转 诪诪爪讬谉 讗转 讛诪讚讜转 诪驻谞讬 讛讟讜注讬谉:

MISHNA: With regard to one for whom it grew dark while he was traveling outside the Shabbat limit of the town where he was heading, even if he was only one cubit outside the limit he may not enter the town. Rabbi Shimon says: Even if he was fifteen cubits beyond the limit he may enter the town, because the surveyors do not precisely demarcate the measures; rather, they mark the Shabbat limit within the two thousand cubits, due to those who err.

讙诪壮 转谞讗 诪驻谞讬 讟讜注讬 讛诪讚讛:

GEMARA: With regard to the mishna鈥檚 statement: Due to those who err, it is taught in a baraita: Due to those who err in their measurement. In other words, because the surveyors are concerned that they might have erred in their measurements, they are stringent and do not position the mark at the edge of the limit, but move it several cubits within the limit.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 诪讬 砖讛讜爪讬讗讜讛讜

 

诪转谞讬壮 讻讬爪讚 诪注讘专讬谉 讗转 讛注专讬诐 讘讬转 谞讻谞住 讘讬转 讬讜爪讗 驻讙讜诐 谞讻谞住 驻讙讜诐 讬讜爪讗 讛讬讜 砖诐 讙讚讜讚讬讜转 讙讘讜讛讜转 注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐

MISHNA: How does one extend the boundaries of cities in order to ensure that all its protrusions are included within the borders of the city? He extends a straight line across the edge of the city, and if a house is recessed and another house protrudes, or a turret [pagum] is recessed and another turret protrudes from that line, and similarly, if there were remnants of walls ten handbreadths high,

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 sponsored by聽the students at the Emerging Scholars of Yeshivat Maharat in聽honor of Rabbanit Michelle and all your work!

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 52-58 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

This week we will complete the fourth chapter of Masechet Eruvin and begin the fifth.聽 We will learn about extending...

Eruvin 52

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Eruvin 52

讗诪专 转讛讗 砖讘讬转转讬 讘爪讬谞转讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诪讗讬 讚注转讬讱 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘诪拽讜诐 驻诇讜谞讬

He would declare on Shabbat eve: My residence is in Tzinta, a settlement located between the Shabbat limits of the two places. Abaye said to him: What is your opinion that led you to act in that manner? Is it because in a dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and Rav 岣sda said: The dispute between these two Sages is in a case where the person said: My residence is in such-and-such place, and you rely on Rabbi Yehuda and establish residence at a place between the two cities even though you are still at home?

讜讛讗 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讜转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讚专讬 讘讬

But didn鈥檛 Rav Na岣an explain the dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda differently, and furthermore, a baraita was taught in accordance with his opinion. Rabba bar Rav 岣nan said to him: I retract my opinion and will no longer do so.

讗诪专 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讛专讬 讗诪专讜 砖讘转 讬砖 诇讜 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讛谞讜转谉 讗转 注讬专讜讘讜 讬砖 诇讜 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讗讜 诇讗

Rami bar 岣ma said: The Sages have said that one who establishes residence by foot has four cubits at that location, and another two thousand cubits beyond. However, with regard to one who deposits his eiruv in a certain place, there is a dilemma whether he has four cubits from the site of his eiruv, or not.

讗诪专 专讘讗 转讗 砖诪注 诇讗 讗诪专讜 诪注专讘讬谉 讘驻转 讗诇讗 诇讛拽诇 注诇 讛注砖讬专 砖诇讗 讬爪讗 讜讬注专讘 讘专讙诇讬讜 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 讗讬谉 诇讜 讛讗讬 诇讛拽诇 诇讛讞诪讬专 讛讜讗

Rava said: Come and hear a resolution from the mishna: The Sages said that one establishes an eiruv with bread only to be lenient with the wealthy person, so that he need not exert himself and go out and establish an eiruv with his feet. And if you say that one who establishes an eiruv with bread does not have four cubits, is this really a leniency? It is a stringency. Based on the mishna, apparently, all leniencies that apply to one who establishes an eiruv by foot must also apply to one who establishes an eiruv with bread.

讗驻讬诇讜 讛讻讬 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讗 谞讟专讞 讜谞讬驻讜拽:

The Gemara rejects this argument: No proof can be cited from there, as even if he without the four cubits, this is preferable to him, so that he need not exert himself and go out and establish an eiruv by foot. Therefore, it can be said that establishing an eiruv with bread constitutes a leniency even if it entails the loss of four cubits.

诪转谞讬壮 诪讬 砖讬爪讗 诇讬诇讱 讘注讬专 砖诪注专讘讬谉 讘讛 讜讛讞讝讬专讜 讞讘讬专讜 讛讜讗 诪讜转专 诇讬诇讱 讜讻诇 讘谞讬 讛注讬专 讗住讜专讬谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

MISHNA: If a person set out to go on a Shabbat eve to a town for which an eiruv is established in order to go there on Shabbat, and another person caused him to return home, he himself is permitted to go to that city on Shabbat, and for all the other residents of the town it is prohibited to go there. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讬讻讜诇 诇注专讘 讜诇讗 注讬专讘 讛专讬 讝讛 讞诪专 讙诪诇:

Rabbi Meir says: Anyone who can establish an eiruv, and negated his residence in his original place, and did not establish an eiruv, i.e., he did not at least state that he seeks to establish residence somewhere else, is likened to both a donkey driver, who walks behind the animal and prods it, and a camel driver, who walks before the animal and leads it, in the sense that he is pulled in two opposite directions. Due to the uncertainty with regard to the location of his Shabbat limit, his movement is restricted as though his residence was established in both his city and at a location along the way to the other city. He may not venture beyond two thousand cubits from either location.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讗讬讛讜 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讗讬谞讛讜 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖讬砖 诇讜 砖谞讬 讘转讬诐 讜讘讬谞讬讛谉 砖谞讬 转讞讜诪讬 砖讘转

GEMARA: With regard to the mishna鈥檚 statement that according to Rabbi Yehuda, he himself is permitted to go to the other city, while for all the rest of the residents of his city it is prohibited to do so, the Gemara asks: What is different about him and what is different about them? Why is he permitted to proceed to the other city, while they are not? Rav Huna said: We are dealing here with a case where that person has two houses, one in each town, with the distance of two Shabbat limits, four thousand cubits, between them.

讗讬讛讜 讻讬讜谉 讚谞驻拽 诇讬讛 诇讗讜专讞讗 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 注谞讬 讜讛谞讬 注砖讬专讬 谞讬谞讛讜

With regard to him, since he set out on his way, his legal status is that of a pauper, as he did not intend to return to his first house but to continue to his other house, and he can therefore establish residence at the end of his Shabbat limit simply by declaring that he wishes to acquire residence in such-and-such place. And the legal status of these other inhabitants of his city, is that of wealthy people, as they are in their houses and have food. Consequently, they can only establish residence at the end of their Shabbat limit by depositing food there prior the onset of Shabbat.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 诪讬 砖讬砖 诇讜 砖谞讬 讘转讬诐 讜讘讬谞讬讛谉 砖谞讬 转讞讜诪讬 砖讘转 讻讬讜谉 砖讛讞讝讬拽 讘讚专讱 拽谞讛 注讬专讜讘 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

That was also taught in a baraita: With regard to one who has two houses, with the distance of two Shabbat limits between them, once he set out on the way, clearly demonstrating his intention to leave, although he did not explicitly say: My residence is at the end of my Shabbat limit, he acquired an eiruv there. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

讬转专 注诇 讻谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗驻讬诇讜 诪爪讗讜 讞讘讬专讜 讜讗诪专 诇讜 诇讬谉 驻讛 注转 讞诪讛 讛讜讗 注转 爪讬谞讛 讛讜讗 诇诪讞专 诪砖讻讬诐 讜讛讜诇讱

Furthermore, Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda said: Even if another found him before he left, and said to him: Spend the night here, it is a hot period, or it is a cold period and inadvisable to set out now, on the following day he may rise early and go to the other town, as his intention to walk is sufficient.

讗诪专 专讘讛 诇讜诪专 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚爪专讬讱 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 诇讛讞讝讬拽

Rabba said: With regard to saying that he is establishing residence at the end of his Shabbat limit, everyone agrees that this is necessary, as otherwise it could be understood that he is returning to his house because he changed his mind about establishing residence elsewhere. When they disagree is with regard to whether or not it is necessary for him actually to set out on his way. Rabbi Yehuda maintains that he must have set out on his way, whereas Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, maintains that he need not even set out on his way, as his intention to leave is sufficient.

讜专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 诇讛讞讝讬拽 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚爪专讬讱 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 诇讜诪专

And Rav Yosef said: With regard to actually setting out on his way, everyone agrees that this is necessary. Where they disagree is with regard to whether or not it is necessary for him to say that he is establishing his residence at the end of his Shabbat limit.

讻诪讗谉 讗讝诇讗 讛讗 讚讗诪专 注讜诇讗 诪讬 砖讛讞讝讬拽 讘讚专讱 讜讛讞讝讬专讜 讞讘讬专讜 讛专讬 讛讜讗 诪讜讞讝专 讜诪讜讞讝拽

The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is this halakha that Ulla stated? If a person set out on his way, and another persuaded him to return home, he is considered returned and is considered set out on his way.

讗讬 诪讜讞讝专 诇诪讛 诪讜讞讝拽 讜讗讬 诪讜讞讝拽 诇诪讛 诪讜讞讝专

The Gemara analyzes Ulla鈥檚 statement itself: If he is considered returned, with the same legal status as the rest of the residents of his city and has not established residence elsewhere, why is he described as set out on his way? And if he is considered set out on his way, indicating that he established residence at the end of his Shabbat limit, why is he described as returned?

讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诪讜讞讝专 诪讜讞讝拽 讻诪讗谉 讻专讘 讬讜住祝 讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

The Gemara answers: Emend Ulla鈥檚 statement and explain that this is what he is saying: Although he was returned to his original place, he is nonetheless regarded as having set out on his way. In accordance with whose opinion did he state this ruling? According to the opinion of Rav Yosef, that everyone agrees he must set out on his way, and in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, that he need not declare he is establishing his residence at the end of his Shabbat limit.

专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专 讗讬砖转转讗 讗讬讬转讬 诇讬讛 讻诇讻诇讛 讚驻讬专讬 诇专讘 谞转谉 讘专 讗讜砖注讬讗 讻讬 讛讜讛 讗讝讬诇 砖讘拽讬讛 注讚 讚谞讞讬转 讚专讙讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘讬转 讛讻讗 诇诪讞专 拽讚讬诐 讜讗讝讬诇

The Gemara relates that Rav Yehuda bar Ishtata once brought a basket of fruit to Rav Natan bar Oshaya in a nearby town, four thousand cubits away, on Shabbat eve. When he was going, Rav Natan left him until he descended one step, and then said to him: Lodge here tonight. He allowed him start his journey so that he would be considered as having set out on his way. On the following day Rav Yehuda bar Ishtata rose early and went home.

讻诪讗谉 讻专讘 讬讜住祝 讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛

The Gemara comments: In accordance with whose opinion did Rav Natan bar Oshaya act? Apparently, it was in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yosef that everyone agrees that he must set out on his way, and in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda that he need not declare that he is establishing his residence at the end of his Shabbat limit.

诇讗 讻专讘讛 讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛:

The Gemara rejects this suggestion: No, that is not necessarily so, as it is possible to say that he acted according to the opinion of Rabba, and in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and Rav Yehuda bar Ishtata declared that he establishes his residence at the end of his Shabbat limit.

专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讻诇 砖讬讻讜诇 诇注专讘 讻讜壮: 讛讗 转谞讬谞讗 讞讚讗 讝讬诪谞讗 住驻拽 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛专讬 讝讛 讞诪专 讙诪诇

We learned in the mishna that Rabbi Meir says: Anyone who can establish an eiruv, and negated his residence in his original place, and did not establish an eiruv, is likened to both a donkey driver and a camel driver. The Gemara asks: Didn鈥檛 we have already learned it once before in another mishna: In a case of uncertainty, Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda say: This person is likened to both a donkey driver and a camel driver. Here too, it is obvious that the same applies, as that is Rabbi Meir鈥檚 opinion with regard to all uncertain cases.

讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 诇讗 转讬诪讗 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 住驻拽 注讬专讘 住驻拽 诇讗 注讬专讘 讛讜讗 讚讛讜讬 讞诪专 讙诪诇 讗讘诇 讜讚讗讬 诇讗 注讬专讘 诇讗 讛讜讬 讞诪专 讙诪诇

Rav Sheshet said: It is necessary to state this ruling here as well, so that you will not say the reason for Rabbi Meir鈥檚 statement only applies in a case where there is uncertainty whether one established an eiruv or did not establish an eiruv, and in that case he is in likened to both a donkey driver and a camel driver. However, in a case where there is certainty that he did not establish an eiruv he is not likened to both a donkey driver and a camel driver, but his Shabbat limit is the same as the rest of the residents of his city.

讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讜讚讗讬 诇讗 注讬专讘 讛讜讬 讞诪专 讙诪诇 讚讛讗 讛讻讗 讜讚讗讬 诇讗 注讬专讘 讜拽讗 讛讜讬 讞诪专 讙诪诇:

Rather, say that even in a case where there is certainty that he did not establish an eiruv he is sometimes likened to both a donkey driver and a camel driver, as here he certainly did not establish an eiruv, and yet he is likened to both a donkey driver and a camel driver. It was therefore necessary to state that even in that case, where there is no uncertainty whether or not he established the eiruv, but only with regard to the location of his residence, he nonetheless has the status of both a donkey driver and a camel driver.

诪转谞讬壮 诪讬 砖讬爪讗 讞讜抓 诇转讞讜诐 讗驻讬诇讜 讗诪讛 讗讞转 诇讗 讬讻谞住 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 砖转讬诐 讬讻谞住 砖诇砖 诇讗 讬讻谞住:

MISHNA: One who intentionally, not for the purpose of performing a mitzva, went out beyond his Shabbat limit, even if only one cubit, may not reenter. Rabbi Eliezer says: If he went out two cubits he may reenter; however, if he went out three cubits he may not reenter.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 专讙诇讜 讗讞转 讘转讜讱 讛转讞讜诐 讜专讙诇讜 讗讞转 讞讜抓 诇转讞讜诐 诇讗 讬讻谞住 讚讻转讬讘 讗诐 转砖讬讘 诪砖讘转 专讙诇讱 专讙诇讱 讻转讬讘

GEMARA: Rabbi 岣nina said: If one of his feet was within the Shabbat limit, and his other foot was beyond the Shabbat limit, he may not reenter, as it is written: 鈥淚f you turn away your feet [raglekha] due to Shabbat鈥 (Isaiah 58:13). The word raglekha is written in defective form without the letter yod, and can therefore be read as your foot in the singular, indicating that Shabbat can be desecrated by the reentry of even a single foot.

讜讛转谞讬讗 专讙诇讜 讗讞转 讘转讜讱 讛转讞讜诐 讜专讙诇讜 讗讞转 讞讜抓 诇转讞讜诐 讬讻谞住 讛讗 诪谞讬 讗讞专讬诐 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讗讞专讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇诪拽讜诐 砖专讜讘讜 讛讜讗 谞讝拽专

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But wasn鈥檛 the opposite taught in a baraita? If one of his feet was within the Shabbat limit, and his other foot was beyond the Shabbat limit, he may reenter. The Gemara answers: In accordance with whose opinion is this taught? It is in accordance with the opinion of A岣rim, as it was taught in a baraita: A岣rim say: He is attributed to the place where the majority of his body lies, and therefore, it is permitted for him to enter, as he stepped out with only one foot.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 专讙诇讜 讗讞转 讘转讜讱 讛转讞讜诐 讜专讙诇讜 讗讞转 讞讜抓 诇转讞讜诐 讬讻谞住 讚讻转讬讘 讗诐 转砖讬讘 诪砖讘转 专讙诇讱 专讙诇讬讱 拽专讬谞谉

The Gemara cites a different version of the previous discussion. Some say that Rabbi 岣nina said: If one of his feet was within the Shabbat limit, and his other foot was beyond the Shabbat limit, he may reenter, as it is written: 鈥淚f you turn away your feet due to Shabbat鈥 (Isaiah 58:13). We read the word raglekha as your feet, in the plural, indicating that the entry of a single foot is permitted.

讜讛转谞讬讗 诇讗 讬讻谞住 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 讻讗讞专讬诐 讚转谞讬讗 诇诪拽讜诐 砖专讜讘讜 讛讜讗 谞讝拽专:

The Gemara raises a difficulty. But wasn鈥檛 the opposite taught in a baraita: He may not reenter? The Gemara answers: Rabbi 岣nina stated his opinion in accordance with the opinion of A岣rim, as it was taught in a baraita: He is attributed to the place where the majority of his body is located, and it is therefore permitted to enter, as most of his body remains within the Shabbat limit.

专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 砖转讬诐 讬讻谞住 砖诇砖 诇讗 讬讻谞住: 讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗讞转 讬讻谞住 砖转讬诐 诇讗 讬讻谞住 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚注拽专 讞讚讗 讜拽诐 讗转专转讬 讛讗 讚注拽专 转专转讬 讜拽诐 讗转诇转

We learned in the mishna that Rabbi Eliezer says: If he went out two cubits he may reenter; however, if he went out three cubits he may not reenter. The Gemara asks: But wasn鈥檛 it taught otherwise in a baraita? Rabbi Eliezer says: If he went out one cubit he may reenter; however, if he went out two cubits he may not reenter. The Gemara answers: That is not a difficulty. This, the mishna, is referring to a case where he moved from the first cubit and is now standing two cubits out, and therefore it is permitted for him to reenter; however, that, the baraita, is referring to a case where he moved from the second cubit and is now standing three cubits out. Consequently, it is prohibited for him to reenter.

讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讗诪讛 讗讞转 诇讗 讬讻谞住 讻讬 转谞讬讗 讛讛讬讗 诇诪讜讚讚 讚转谞谉 讜诇诪讜讚讚 砖讗诪专讜 谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讜 讗诇驻讬诐 讗诪讛 讗驻讬诇讜 住讜祝 诪讚转讜 讻诇讛 讘诪注专讛:

The Gemara raises another difficulty. But wasn鈥檛 it taught in a different baraita that Rabbi Eliezer says: Even if he went one cubit out, he may not enter. The Gemara answers: When that baraita was taught it was with regard to one measuring his limit by counting two thousand steps. As we learned in a mishna: And for one established residence in a particular place, and is now measuring his limit by counting out steps, with regard to whom the Sages said one provides him with two thousand cubits, even if his measurement ended in a cave he may not walk even one cubit beyond his measurement.

诪转谞讬壮 诪讬 砖讛讞砖讬讱 讞讜抓 诇转讞讜诐 讗驻讬诇讜 讗诪讛 讗讞转 诇讗 讬讻谞住 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讞诪砖 注砖专讛 讗诪讜转 讬讻谞住 砖讗讬谉 讛诪砖讜讞讜转 诪诪爪讬谉 讗转 讛诪讚讜转 诪驻谞讬 讛讟讜注讬谉:

MISHNA: With regard to one for whom it grew dark while he was traveling outside the Shabbat limit of the town where he was heading, even if he was only one cubit outside the limit he may not enter the town. Rabbi Shimon says: Even if he was fifteen cubits beyond the limit he may enter the town, because the surveyors do not precisely demarcate the measures; rather, they mark the Shabbat limit within the two thousand cubits, due to those who err.

讙诪壮 转谞讗 诪驻谞讬 讟讜注讬 讛诪讚讛:

GEMARA: With regard to the mishna鈥檚 statement: Due to those who err, it is taught in a baraita: Due to those who err in their measurement. In other words, because the surveyors are concerned that they might have erred in their measurements, they are stringent and do not position the mark at the edge of the limit, but move it several cubits within the limit.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 诪讬 砖讛讜爪讬讗讜讛讜

 

诪转谞讬壮 讻讬爪讚 诪注讘专讬谉 讗转 讛注专讬诐 讘讬转 谞讻谞住 讘讬转 讬讜爪讗 驻讙讜诐 谞讻谞住 驻讙讜诐 讬讜爪讗 讛讬讜 砖诐 讙讚讜讚讬讜转 讙讘讜讛讜转 注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐

MISHNA: How does one extend the boundaries of cities in order to ensure that all its protrusions are included within the borders of the city? He extends a straight line across the edge of the city, and if a house is recessed and another house protrudes, or a turret [pagum] is recessed and another turret protrudes from that line, and similarly, if there were remnants of walls ten handbreadths high,

Scroll To Top