Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

September 30, 2020 | י״ב 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 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?

אמר תהא שביתתי בצינתא אמר ליה אביי מאי דעתיך רבי מאיר ורבי יהודה הלכה כרבי יהודה ואמר רב חסדא מחלוקת במקום פלוני

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 Ḥisda 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?

והא רב נחמן ותניא כוותיה אמר ליה הדרי בי

But didn’t Rav Naḥman explain the dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda differently, and furthermore, a baraita was taught in accordance with his opinion. Rabba bar Rav Ḥanan said to him: I retract my opinion and will no longer do so.

אמר רמי בר חמא הרי אמרו שבת יש לו ארבע אמות הנותן את עירובו יש לו ארבע אמות או לא

Rami bar Ḥama 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.

אמר רבא תא שמע לא אמרו מערבין בפת אלא להקל על העשיר שלא יצא ויערב ברגליו ואי אמרת אין לו האי להקל להחמיר הוא

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.

אפילו הכי ניחא ליה כי היכי דלא נטרח וניפוק:

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.

מתני׳ מי שיצא לילך בעיר שמערבין בה והחזירו חבירו הוא מותר לילך וכל בני העיר אסורין דברי רבי יהודה

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.

רבי מאיר אומר כל שהוא יכול לערב ולא עירב הרי זה חמר גמל:

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.

גמ׳ מאי שנא איהו ומאי שנא אינהו אמר רב הונא הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שיש לו שני בתים וביניהן שני תחומי שבת

GEMARA: With regard to the mishna’s 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.

איהו כיון דנפק ליה לאורחא הוה ליה עני והני עשירי נינהו

With regard to him, since he set out on his way, his legal status is that of a pauper, as he did not intended 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.

תניא נמי הכי מי שיש לו שני בתים וביניהן שני תחומי שבת כיון שהחזיק בדרך קנה עירוב דברי רבי יהודה

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.

יתר על כן אמר רבי יוסי ברבי יהודה אפילו מצאו חבירו ואמר לו לין פה עת חמה הוא עת צינה הוא למחר משכים והולך

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.

אמר רבה לומר כולי עלמא לא פליגי דצריך כי פליגי להחזיק

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.

ורב יוסף אמר להחזיק דכולי עלמא לא פליגי דצריך כי פליגי לומר

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.

כמאן אזלא הא דאמר עולא מי שהחזיק בדרך והחזירו חבירו הרי הוא מוחזר ומוחזק

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 as considered set out on his way.

אי מוחזר למה מוחזק ואי מוחזק למה מוחזר

The Gemara analyzes Ulla’s 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?

הכי קאמר אף על פי שמוחזר מוחזק כמאן כרב יוסף ואליבא דרבי יוסי ברבי יהודה

The Gemara answers: Emend Ulla’s 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.

רב יהודה בר אישתתא אייתי ליה כלכלה דפירי לרב נתן בר אושעיא כי הוה אזיל שבקיה עד דנחית דרגא אמר ליה בית הכא למחר קדים ואזיל

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.

כמאן כרב יוסף ואליבא דרבי יוסי בר יהודה

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.

לא כרבה ואליבא דרבי יהודה:

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.

רבי מאיר אומר כל שיכול לערב כו׳: הא תנינא חדא זימנא ספק רבי מאיר ורבי יהודה אומרים הרי זה חמר גמל

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’t 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’s opinion with regard to all uncertain cases.

אמר רב ששת לא תימא טעמא דרבי מאיר ספק עירב ספק לא עירב הוא דהוי חמר גמל אבל ודאי לא עירב לא הוי חמר גמל

Rav Sheshet said: It is necessary to state this ruling here as well, so that you will not say the reason for Rabbi Meir’s 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.

אלא אפילו ודאי לא עירב הוי חמר גמל דהא הכא ודאי לא עירב וקא הוי חמר גמל:

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.

מתני׳ מי שיצא חוץ לתחום אפילו אמה אחת לא יכנס רבי אליעזר אומר שתים יכנס שלש לא יכנס:

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.

גמ׳ אמר רבי חנינא רגלו אחת בתוך התחום ורגלו אחת חוץ לתחום לא יכנס דכתיב אם תשיב משבת רגלך רגלך כתיב

GEMARA: Rabbi Ḥanina 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: “If you turn away your feet [raglekha] due to Shabbat” (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.

והתניא רגלו אחת בתוך התחום ורגלו אחת חוץ לתחום יכנס הא מני אחרים היא דתניא אחרים אומרים למקום שרובו הוא נזקר

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But wasn’t 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 Aḥerim, as it was taught in a baraita: Aḥerim 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.

איכא דאמרי אמר רבי חנינא רגלו אחת בתוך התחום ורגלו אחת חוץ לתחום יכנס דכתיב אם תשיב משבת רגלך רגליך קרינן

The Gemara cites a different version of the previous discussion. Some say that Rabbi Ḥanina 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: “If you turn away your feet due to Shabbat” (Isaiah 58:13). We read the word raglekha as your feet, in the plural, indicating that the entry of a single foot is permitted.

והתניא לא יכנס הוא דאמר כאחרים דתניא למקום שרובו הוא נזקר:

The Gemara raises a difficulty. But wasn’t the opposite taught in a baraita: He may not reenter? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Ḥanina stated his opinion in accordance with the opinion of Aḥerim, 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.

רבי אליעזר אומר שתים יכנס שלש לא יכנס: והתניא רבי אליעזר אומר אחת יכנס שתים לא יכנס לא קשיא הא דעקר חדא וקם אתרתי הא דעקר תרתי וקם אתלת

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’t it taught otherwise in a baraita? Rabbi Eliezer says: If he went out one cubits 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.

והתניא רבי אליעזר אומר אפילו אמה אחת לא יכנס כי תניא ההיא למודד דתנן ולמודד שאמרו נותנין לו אלפים אמה אפילו סוף מדתו כלה במערה:

The Gemara raises another difficulty. But wasn’t 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.

מתני׳ מי שהחשיך חוץ לתחום אפילו אמה אחת לא יכנס רבי שמעון אומר אפילו חמש עשרה אמות יכנס שאין המשוחות ממצין את המדות מפני הטועין:

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.

גמ׳ תנא מפני טועי המדה:

GEMARA: With regard to the mishna’s 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.

הדרן עלך מי שהוציאוהו

 

מתני׳ כיצד מעברין את הערים בית נכנס בית יוצא פגום נכנס פגום יוצא היו שם גדודיות גבוהות עשרה טפחים

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.

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 52-58 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

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

Eruvin 52

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Eruvin 52

אמר תהא שביתתי בצינתא אמר ליה אביי מאי דעתיך רבי מאיר ורבי יהודה הלכה כרבי יהודה ואמר רב חסדא מחלוקת במקום פלוני

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 Ḥisda 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?

והא רב נחמן ותניא כוותיה אמר ליה הדרי בי

But didn’t Rav Naḥman explain the dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda differently, and furthermore, a baraita was taught in accordance with his opinion. Rabba bar Rav Ḥanan said to him: I retract my opinion and will no longer do so.

אמר רמי בר חמא הרי אמרו שבת יש לו ארבע אמות הנותן את עירובו יש לו ארבע אמות או לא

Rami bar Ḥama 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.

אמר רבא תא שמע לא אמרו מערבין בפת אלא להקל על העשיר שלא יצא ויערב ברגליו ואי אמרת אין לו האי להקל להחמיר הוא

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.

אפילו הכי ניחא ליה כי היכי דלא נטרח וניפוק:

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.

מתני׳ מי שיצא לילך בעיר שמערבין בה והחזירו חבירו הוא מותר לילך וכל בני העיר אסורין דברי רבי יהודה

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.

רבי מאיר אומר כל שהוא יכול לערב ולא עירב הרי זה חמר גמל:

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.

גמ׳ מאי שנא איהו ומאי שנא אינהו אמר רב הונא הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שיש לו שני בתים וביניהן שני תחומי שבת

GEMARA: With regard to the mishna’s 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.

איהו כיון דנפק ליה לאורחא הוה ליה עני והני עשירי נינהו

With regard to him, since he set out on his way, his legal status is that of a pauper, as he did not intended 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.

תניא נמי הכי מי שיש לו שני בתים וביניהן שני תחומי שבת כיון שהחזיק בדרך קנה עירוב דברי רבי יהודה

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.

יתר על כן אמר רבי יוסי ברבי יהודה אפילו מצאו חבירו ואמר לו לין פה עת חמה הוא עת צינה הוא למחר משכים והולך

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.

אמר רבה לומר כולי עלמא לא פליגי דצריך כי פליגי להחזיק

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.

ורב יוסף אמר להחזיק דכולי עלמא לא פליגי דצריך כי פליגי לומר

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.

כמאן אזלא הא דאמר עולא מי שהחזיק בדרך והחזירו חבירו הרי הוא מוחזר ומוחזק

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 as considered set out on his way.

אי מוחזר למה מוחזק ואי מוחזק למה מוחזר

The Gemara analyzes Ulla’s 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?

הכי קאמר אף על פי שמוחזר מוחזק כמאן כרב יוסף ואליבא דרבי יוסי ברבי יהודה

The Gemara answers: Emend Ulla’s 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.

רב יהודה בר אישתתא אייתי ליה כלכלה דפירי לרב נתן בר אושעיא כי הוה אזיל שבקיה עד דנחית דרגא אמר ליה בית הכא למחר קדים ואזיל

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.

כמאן כרב יוסף ואליבא דרבי יוסי בר יהודה

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.

לא כרבה ואליבא דרבי יהודה:

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.

רבי מאיר אומר כל שיכול לערב כו׳: הא תנינא חדא זימנא ספק רבי מאיר ורבי יהודה אומרים הרי זה חמר גמל

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’t 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’s opinion with regard to all uncertain cases.

אמר רב ששת לא תימא טעמא דרבי מאיר ספק עירב ספק לא עירב הוא דהוי חמר גמל אבל ודאי לא עירב לא הוי חמר גמל

Rav Sheshet said: It is necessary to state this ruling here as well, so that you will not say the reason for Rabbi Meir’s 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.

אלא אפילו ודאי לא עירב הוי חמר גמל דהא הכא ודאי לא עירב וקא הוי חמר גמל:

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.

מתני׳ מי שיצא חוץ לתחום אפילו אמה אחת לא יכנס רבי אליעזר אומר שתים יכנס שלש לא יכנס:

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.

גמ׳ אמר רבי חנינא רגלו אחת בתוך התחום ורגלו אחת חוץ לתחום לא יכנס דכתיב אם תשיב משבת רגלך רגלך כתיב

GEMARA: Rabbi Ḥanina 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: “If you turn away your feet [raglekha] due to Shabbat” (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.

והתניא רגלו אחת בתוך התחום ורגלו אחת חוץ לתחום יכנס הא מני אחרים היא דתניא אחרים אומרים למקום שרובו הוא נזקר

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But wasn’t 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 Aḥerim, as it was taught in a baraita: Aḥerim 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.

איכא דאמרי אמר רבי חנינא רגלו אחת בתוך התחום ורגלו אחת חוץ לתחום יכנס דכתיב אם תשיב משבת רגלך רגליך קרינן

The Gemara cites a different version of the previous discussion. Some say that Rabbi Ḥanina 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: “If you turn away your feet due to Shabbat” (Isaiah 58:13). We read the word raglekha as your feet, in the plural, indicating that the entry of a single foot is permitted.

והתניא לא יכנס הוא דאמר כאחרים דתניא למקום שרובו הוא נזקר:

The Gemara raises a difficulty. But wasn’t the opposite taught in a baraita: He may not reenter? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Ḥanina stated his opinion in accordance with the opinion of Aḥerim, 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.

רבי אליעזר אומר שתים יכנס שלש לא יכנס: והתניא רבי אליעזר אומר אחת יכנס שתים לא יכנס לא קשיא הא דעקר חדא וקם אתרתי הא דעקר תרתי וקם אתלת

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’t it taught otherwise in a baraita? Rabbi Eliezer says: If he went out one cubits 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.

והתניא רבי אליעזר אומר אפילו אמה אחת לא יכנס כי תניא ההיא למודד דתנן ולמודד שאמרו נותנין לו אלפים אמה אפילו סוף מדתו כלה במערה:

The Gemara raises another difficulty. But wasn’t 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.

מתני׳ מי שהחשיך חוץ לתחום אפילו אמה אחת לא יכנס רבי שמעון אומר אפילו חמש עשרה אמות יכנס שאין המשוחות ממצין את המדות מפני הטועין:

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.

גמ׳ תנא מפני טועי המדה:

GEMARA: With regard to the mishna’s 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.

הדרן עלך מי שהוציאוהו

 

מתני׳ כיצד מעברין את הערים בית נכנס בית יוצא פגום נכנס פגום יוצא היו שם גדודיות גבוהות עשרה טפחים

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,

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

Scroll To Top