Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

October 9, 2020 | כ״א 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 61

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi brings two cases – if one acquired residence outside the city and measured the techum from there and it ended in the middle of a city, one’s limit ends there. But if it ended at the end of the city, the entire city is like 4 cubits and one continues counting from the other side of the city. Rav Idi questions Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levy as there is no basis for saying this. Is there really no basis? Rav Yosef explains the law in a city that borders on a ravine. Is this considered a city or not for the purposes of measuring techum? Rav Yosef brings a proof from a ruling of Rebbi  regarding people going in between two particular cities, but the gemara explains the reason in a different way and rejects the proof. If there are two cities – one smalla dn one large, if one is in one at the start of Shabbat but has an eruv in the other, does one get 2,000 cubits from the eruv or from the outskirts of the city? Rabbi Akiva and the rabbis disagree. They all agree in the case of an eruv in a cave that one counts 2,000 cubits from the eruv – but in what circumstances? What if one’s eruv was outside and the 2,000 cubits ended in the middle of the cave? Shmuel and Rabbi Elazar disagree regarding acquiring residence in a desolate city. Would there be a distinction between one who acquired residence by being there physically or by putting food there? Are there proofs for Shmuel’s approach? What are the laws of eruv chatzerot in a courtyard where there are non-Jews?

ואין אנשי עיר קטנה מהלכין את כל עיר גדולה

And the residents of a small city may not walk through an entire large city.

מאי טעמא לאו משום דהני כלתה מדתן בחצי העיר והני כלתה מדתן בסוף העיר

What is the reason for this difference? Is it not because these, the residents of the small city, their measure of two thousand cubits terminated in the middle of the large city, and therefore they may walk only to the end of their two thousand cubits; and these, the residents of the large city, their measure of two thousand cubits terminated at the far end of the small city, allowing them to walk through the entire city as though it were four cubits and complete the two thousand cubit measure of their Shabbat limit on the other side of the city?

ורבי אידי אנשי אנשי תני ומוקים לה בנותן אבל מודד לא תנן

And Rabbi Idi, who said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi’s statement has no source, may hold that the mishna teaches the two cases with the same formulation. Just as it states: The residents of a large city may walk through an entire small city, it similarly states: The residents of a small city may walk through an entire large city. His version of the mishna did not state that the residents of a small city may not walk through an entire large city. And he establishes the mishna as referring to one who placed his eiruv inside the other city. Consequently, that city becomes his Shabbat residence, and he may walk anywhere in that city and an additional two thousand cubits beyond it. But we did not learn anything about one who was measuring two thousand cubits from his Shabbat residence outside the city, in which case it makes a difference whether the entire city is within his two thousand cubits or whether only part of it is within this limit.

ולא והתנן ולמודד שאמרו נותנין לו אלפים אמה שאפילו סוף מדתו כלה במערה

The Gemara asks: And did we not learn in the mishna about one who was measuring? Didn’t we learn in the mishna: And as for one who is measuring his Shabbat limit, with regard to whom the Sages said that one gives him two thousand cubits, that applies even if the end of his measurement terminates in the middle of a cave? Although a cave has the status of a private domain, he may enter only the part of the cave that is within his two thousand cubits. This case is directly parallel to the case of one whose two thousand cubits end in the middle of a city.

סוף העיר איצטריכא ליה דלא תנן

The Gemara answers: Although there is a source for the case of one whose limit ends in the middle of a city, it was nevertheless necessary for Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi to teach the case where one’s measure ends at the far end of the city, in which case the entire city is regarded as four cubits and the rest of the Shabbat limit is completed on the other side of the city, as we did not learn anything about such a case.

אמר רב נחמן מאן דתני אנשי לא משתבש ומאן דתני אין אנשי לא משתבש

With regard to the mishna cited above, Rav Naḥman said: One who teaches the following in the second clause: The residents of a small city may walk through an entire large city, does not err in his rendering of the mishna. And one who teaches: The residents of a small city may not walk through an entire large city, also does not err. Both renderings are plausible.

מאן דתני אנשי לא משתבש דמוקים לה בנותן ומאן דתני אין אנשי לא משתבש דמוקים לה במודד

Rav Naḥman explains: One who teaches: The residents of a small city may walk through an entire large city, does not err, as he establishes the mishna as referring to one who places his eiruv inside the other city. And one who teaches: The residents of a small city may not walk through an entire large city also does not err, as he establishes the mishna as referring to one who measures his Shabbat limit and arrives at the city from the outside.

וחסורי מחסרא והכי קתני אנשי עיר גדולה מהלכין את כל עיר קטנה ואין אנשי עיר קטנה מהלכין את כל עיר גדולה במה דברים אמורים במודד אבל מי שהיה בעיר גדולה והניח את עירובו בעיר קטנה היה בעיר קטנה והניח את עירובו בעיר גדולה מהלך את כולה וחוצה לה אלפים אמה

And the mishna is incomplete and it teaches the following: The residents of a large city may walk through an entire small city, but the residents of a small city may not walk through an entire large city. In what case is this statement said? It was said with regard to one who was measuring his two thousand cubits from his Shabbat residence. But one who was in the large city and placed his eiruv in the small city, and similarly one who was in the small city and placed his eiruv in the large city, he may walk through the entire city in which he placed his eiruv and beyond it two thousand cubits.

אמר רב יוסף אמר רמי בר אבא אמר רב הונא עיר שיושבת על שפת הנחל אם יש לפניה דקה ארבעה מודדים לה משפת הנחל ואם לאו אין מודדין לה אלא מפתח ביתו

Rav Yosef said that Rami bar Abba said that Rav Huna said: With regard to a city located on the edge of a ravine, if there is a barrier four cubits high in front of it, one measures its Shabbat limit from the edge of the ravine, as it is considered the border of the city. And if there is not a barrier four cubits high in front of it, the Shabbat limit is measured from the entrance of each person’s house, as the city is not considered a permanent settlement.

אמר ליה אביי דקה ארבע אמות אמרת לן עלה מאי שנא מכל דקי דעלמא דארבעה

Abaye said to him: You told us with regard to this case that a barrier four cubits high is required. What is different about this case that it requires a barrier that is higher than all other barriers, which must reach a height of only four handbreadths?

אמר ליה התם לא בעיתא תשמישתא הכא בעיתא תשמישתא

He said to him: There, use of the place is not frightening; here, use of the place is frightening. Generally, partitions serve a symbolic function, and therefore it is sufficient for the partition to be four handbreadths high. In this case, however, it is frightening to stand along the edge of the ravine without a protective barrier, and therefore a barrier four cubits high must be constructed for the safety of the residents.

אמר רב יוסף מנא אמינא לה דתניא התיר רבי שיהו בני גדר יורדין לחמתן ואין בני חמתן עולין לגדר מאי טעמא לאו משום דהני עבוד דקה והני לא עבוד דקה

Rav Yosef said: From where do I derive to say this halakha? As it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi permitted the residents of Geder, situated at the top of a slope, to descend on Shabbat to Ḥamtan, situated at the bottom of the slope, but the residents of Ḥamtan may not ascend to Geder. What is the reason? Is it not because these, the inhabitants of Geder, constructed a barrier at the lower edge of their city, and these, the members of Ḥamtan, did not construct a barrier at the upper edge of their city? Consequently, the residents of Geder measured their Shabbat limit from their barrier, and Ḥamtan was included in their two thousand cubits. The residents of Ḥamtan had to measure their Shabbat limits from their homes, and therefore Geder was not within their two thousand cubit limit.

כי אתא רב דימי אמר טטרוגי מטטרגי להו בני גדר לבני חמתן ומאי התיר התקין

The Gemara relates that when Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said: This ruling was issued not due to their respective Shabbat limits, but rather because the residents of Geder would assault [metatreg] the residents of Ḥamtan. And what does it mean that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi permitted the residents of Geder to descend to Ḥamtan, but not vice versa? He instituted this. In other words, this was not a halakhic ruling, but rather an ordinance instituted to protect the public welfare and prevent fighting.

ומאי שנא שבת דשכיחא בה שכרות

The Gemara asks: What is different about Shabbat that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi instituted this ordinance only for Shabbat and not for the rest of the week? The Gemara answers: Drunkenness is common on Shabbat, when people eat to their heart’s content. Therefore, there is a greater chance of violent behavior.

כי אזלי להתם נמי מטטרגי להו כלבא בלא מתיה שב שנין לא נבח

The Gemara asks: When the residents of Geder go to Ḥamtan, they will assault the residents there; of what use, then, is this ordinance? The Gemara answers, citing a popular saying: A dog that is not in its place will not bark for seven years. On its own turf, a dog barks readily, but it becomes scared in unfamiliar surroundings and remains silent. Similarly, the people of Geder are not nearly as bold when they visit Ḥamtan as they are in their own town.

השתא נמי מטטרגי בני חמתן לבני גדר כולי האי לא כייפי להו

The Gemara asks: If so, we should be concerned about the reverse scenario, that now too, the residents of Ḥamtan, in their home territory, will take revenge and assault the residents of Geder. The Gemara answers: The people of Geder would not be submissive to such an extent. While visiting Ḥamtan, they would not initiate fights, but they would certainly fight back if they were attacked. Consequently, the people of Ḥamtan would not dare initiate hostilities with them. Therefore, there is no concern about the safety of either group.

רב ספרא אמר עיר העשויה כקשת הואי

Rav Safra said: Geder was a city shaped like a bow, whose two ends were separated by less than four thousand cubits. The empty space of the bow was viewed as though it were filled with houses, and its Shabbat limit was measured from the imaginary bowstring stretched between the two ends of the bow. Consequently, Ḥamtan was included in its Shabbat limit, and the residents of Geder were permitted to go there on Shabbat. With regard to the inhabitants of Ḥamtan, however, that same area between the ends of Geder was viewed as empty space, and therefore the houses of Geder along the arc of the bow were beyond their Shabbat limit.

רב דימי בר חיננא אמר אנשי עיר גדולה ואנשי עיר קטנה הואי

Rav Dimi bar Ḥinana said: The people of Geder were residents of a large city, and the people of Ḥamtan were residents of a small city. Consequently, the residents of the large city, Geder, could walk through all of Ḥamtan, the small city; but the residents of Ḥamtan could walk only through part of Geder, as explained previously.

רב כהנא מתני הכי רב טביומי מתני הכי רב ספרא ורב דימי בר חיננא חד אמר עיר העשויה כקשת הואי וחד אמר אנשי עיר קטנה ואנשי עיר גדולה הואי:

Rav Kahana taught it that way, as stated previously; whereas Rav Tavyomi taught it more concisely, in this way: Rav Safra and Rav Dimi bar Ḥinana disagreed about the matter. One of them said: Geder was a city shaped like a bow; and one of them said: The people of Ḥamtan were residents of a small city and the people of Geder were residents of a large city.

מתני׳ אנשי עיר גדולה מהלכין את כל עיר קטנה ואנשי עיר קטנה מהלכין את כל עיר גדולה כיצד מי שהיה בעיר גדולה ונתן את עירובו בעיר קטנה בעיר קטנה ונתן את עירובו בעיר גדולה מהלך את כולה וחוצה לה אלפים אמה

MISHNA: The residents of a large city may walk through an entire small city, and the residents of a small city may walk through an entire large city, even if part of it is located more than two thousand cubits from their city. How so? One who was in a large city and placed his eiruv in a small city, or one who was in a small city and placed his eiruv in a large city, may walk through the entire city in which he placed his eiruv and another two thousand cubits beyond it, as the entire city is considered as though it were only four cubits.

רבי עקיבא אומר אין לו אלא ממקום עירובו אלפים אמה אמר להן רבי עקיבא אי אתם מודים לי בנותן עירובו במערה שאין לו אלא ממקום עירובו אלפים אמה

Rabbi Akiva says: He has only two thousand cubits from the place of his eiruv, as the actual area of the city is included in the calculation. Rabbi Akiva said to the Rabbis: Do you not concede to me that one who places his eiruv in a cave has only two thousand cubits from the place of his eiruv, and that consequently the entire cave is not considered as merely four cubits?

אמרו לו אימתי בזמן שאין בה דיורין אבל יש בה דיורין מהלך את כולה וחוצה לה אלפים אמה נמצא קל תוכה מעל גבה

The Rabbis said to him: When does this apply? When the cave has no residents. But if it has residents, it is considered as though it were only four cubits, and one may walk through all of it and another two thousand cubits beyond it. Consequently, the halakha with regard to an eiruv placed inside a cave is sometimes more lenient than the halakha governing an eiruv placed in the area above the cave. If one places his eiruv inside a cave that has residents, he has two thousand cubits beyond the cave; if he places it above the cave, where there are no residents, he has only two thousand cubits from the place of his eiruv.

ולמודד שאמרו נותנין אלפים אמה שאפילו סוף מדתו כלה במערה:

And as for one who is measuring his Shabbat limit, with regard to whom the Sages said that one gives him two thousand cubits, that measurement applies even if the end of his measurement terminates in the middle of a cave. He may not walk further into the cave, even if the cave is inhabited.

גמ׳ אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל שבת בעיר חריבה לרבנן מהלך את כולה וחוצה לה אלפים אמה הניח את עירובו בעיר חריבה אין לו ממקום עירובו אלא אלפים אמה רבי אלעזר אומר אחד שבת ואחד הניח מהלך את כולה וחוצה לה אלפים אמה

GEMARA: Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: If one established his Shabbat residence in a desolate city whose walls are still standing, according to the Rabbis he may walk through all of it as though it were four cubits, and he may walk an additional two thousand cubits beyond it. If, however, he merely placed his eiruv in a desolate city, he has only two thousand cubits from the place of his eiruv. The Rabbis distinguish between one who establishes his Shabbat residence by actually being present in that location at the onset of Shabbat and one who does so by placing his eiruv there before Shabbat. Rabbi Elazar says: Whether he established his Shabbat residence through his physical presence or he merely placed his eiruv there, he may walk through all of it and another two thousand cubits beyond it.

מיתיבי אמר להן רבי עקיבא אי אתם מודים לי בנותן את עירובו במערה שאין לו ממקום עירובו אלא אלפים אמה אמרו לו אימתי בזמן שאין בה דיורין הא באין בה דיורין מודו ליה

The Gemara raises an objection based upon the mishna. Rabbi Akiva said to the Rabbis: Do you not concede to me that one who places his eiruv in a cave has only two thousand cubits from the place of his eiruv? They said to him: When does this apply? When the cave has no residents. Consequently, when it has no residents the Rabbis concede to Rabbi Akiva that one has only two thousand cubits from the place of his eiruv. This contradicts Rabbi Elazar’s assertion that, according to the Rabbis, even if one places his eiruv in the abandoned city, he may walk through all of it and another two thousand cubits beyond it.

מאי אין בה דיורין אינה ראויה לדירה

The Gemara responds: What is the meaning of the qualification that it has no residents? It means that the place is not fit for residence. If, however, the city is suitable for habitation, it is considered like four cubits even if it is currently uninhabited.

תא שמע שבת בעיר אפילו היא גדולה כאנטיוכיא במערה אפילו היא כמערת צדקיהו מלך יהודה מהלך את כולה וחוצה לה אלפים אמה קתני עיר דומיא דמערה מה מערה חריבה אף עיר חריבה ושבת אין אבל הניח לא

Come and hear another difficulty from the following baraita: If one established his Shabbat residence through his physical presence in a city, even if it is as large as Antioch, or in a cave, even if it is particularly large, like the Cave of Zedekiah, king of Judah, he may walk through all of it and another two thousand cubits beyond it. The baraita teaches the case of a city that is similar to that of a cave: Just as a cave is presumably desolate, i.e., uninhabited, so too the city must be one that is desolate. And only in the case where he established his Shabbat residence through his physical presence would yes, this halakha apply; but if he merely placed his eiruv there, no, he may not measure his two thousand cubits from the edge of the city.

מני אילימא רבי עקיבא מאי איריא חריבה אפילו ישיבה נמי אלא לאו רבנן וטעמא דשבת אין אבל הניח לא

The Gemara continues clarifying the baraita: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? If you say it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, why did the baraita specifically teach the case of a desolate city? Even if it was inhabited, the same halakha should also apply, as Rabbi Akiva holds that even if one placed his eiruv in an inhabited city, he has only two thousand cubits from the place of his eiruv. Rather, is it not in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis? And nonetheless, the reason is that one established his Shabbat residence through his physical presence. In such a case, yes, one may walk through the entire city and another two thousand cubits beyond it. But if one merely placed his eiruv there, he would not be permitted to walk more than two thousand cubits from his eiruv, which would contradict the opinion of Rabbi Elazar.

לא תימא עיר דומיא דמערה אלא אימא מערה דומיא דעיר מה עיר ישיבה אף מערה ישיבה ורבי עקיבא היא דאמר אין לו ממקום עירובו אלא אלפים אמה ובשבת מודי

The Gemara rejects this argument and argues that the initial inference was incorrect. Do not say that the baraita is referring to a city that is similar to a cave. Rather, say that it is referring to a cave that is similar to a city: Just as the city is presumably inhabited, so too the cave must be one that is inhabited. The baraita is then in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who said that if one merely places his eiruv in the cave, he has only two thousand cubits from the place of his eiruv. However, if one established his Shabbat residence there through his physical presence, even Rabbi Akiva concedes that the entire cave is considered as though it were four cubits, and he may walk two thousand cubits beyond the cave.

והא כמערת צדקיהו קתני כמערת צדקיהו ולא כמערת צדקיהו כמערת צדקיהו גדולה ולא כמערת צדקיהו דאילו התם חריבה והכא ישיבה

The Gemara asks: Doesn’t the baraita teach that this halakha applies even to a cave like the Cave of Zedekiah, which was uninhabited? The Gemara answers: The baraita is referring to a cave that is like the Cave of Zedekiah in one respect and not like the Cave of Zedekiah in other respects. It is like the Cave of Zedekiah in that the cave is as large as that one. And it is not exactly like the Cave of Zedekiah, as there, with regard to Zedekiah’s cave, it was desolate, and here the baraita is referring to a cave that is inhabited.

מר יהודה אשכחינהו לבני מברכתא דקא מותבי עירובייהו בבי כנישתא דבי אגובר אמר להו גוו ביה טפי כי היכי דלישתרי לכו טפי

The Gemara relates that Mar Yehuda once found the residents of Mavrakhta placing their eiruvin in the synagogue of Beit Agovar. He said to them: Place your eiruv farther into the synagogue, so that more will be permitted to you, as the Shabbat limit is measured from the spot where the eiruv is deposited. Mar Yehuda holds that even when an eiruv is placed in an inhabited city, the two thousand cubits are measured from the location of the eiruv rather than from the edge of the city.

אמר ליה רבא פלגאה בעירובין לית דחש להא דרבי עקיבא:

Rava said to him: Argumentative one! With regard to the halakhot of eiruv, nobody is concerned about this opinion of Rabbi Akiva, as the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. Consequently, no matter where one places his eiruv in a city, the entire city is considered as though it were four cubits, and he is permitted to walk two thousand cubits beyond the edge of the city.

הדרן עלך כיצד מעברין

 

מתני׳ הדר עם הנכרי בחצר או עם מי שאינו מודה בעירוב הרי זה אוסר עליו

MISHNA: One who resides with a gentile in the same courtyard, or one who lives in the same courtyard with one who does not accept the principle of eiruv, even though he is not a gentile, such as a Samaritan [Kuti], this person renders it prohibited for him to carry from his own house into the courtyard or from the courtyard into his house, unless he rents this person’s rights in the courtyard, as will be explained below.

רבי אליעזר בן יעקב אומר לעולם אינו אוסר עד שיהו שני ישראלים אוסרין זה על זה

Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: Actually, the gentile does not render it prohibited for one to carry, unless there are two Jews living in the same courtyard who themselves would prohibit one another from carrying if there were no eiruv. In such a case, the presence of the gentile renders the eiruv ineffective. However, if only one Jew lives there, the gentile does not render it prohibited for him to carry in the courtyard.

אמר רבן גמליאל מעשה בצדוקי אחד שהיה דר עמנו במבוי בירושלים ואמר לנו אבא מהרו והוציאו את הכלים למבוי עד שלא יוציא ויאסר עליכם

Rabban Gamliel said: There was an incident involving a certain Sadducee who lived with us in the same alleyway in Jerusalem, who renounced his rights to the alleyway before Shabbat. And Father said to us: Hurry and take out your utensils to the alleyway to establish possession of it, before he changes his mind and takes out his own utensils so as to reclaim his rights, in which case he would render it prohibited for you to use the entire alleyway.

רבי יהודה אומר בלשון אחר מהרו ועשו צרכיכם במבוי עד שלא יוציא ויאסר עליכם:

Rabbi Yehuda says: Rabban Gamliel’s father spoke to them with a different formulation, saying: Hurry and do whatever you must do in the alleyway prior to Shabbat, before he takes out his utensils and renders it prohibited for you to use the alleyway. In other words, you may not bring out utensils to the alleyway at all on Shabbat, as the institution of an eiruv cannot be used in the neighborhood of a Sadducee. This is because, even if he renounced his rights to the alleyway, he can always retract and reclaim them.

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 59-65 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

This week we will review concepts in Daf 59-65 including making an eruv in public vs. private cities, are ladders...
hamat gader pool

Oh the places you’ll go

A number of interesting geographical references have come up in the daf over the last few days. Last week we...
talking talmud_square

Eruvin 61: Getting Drunk on Shabbat

Discussion of the tension regarding the establishment of eruv techumin - where measuring precisely can turn out to be to...
zed cave visitors

Cavemen

"If a man spent Shabbat in  . . . a cave, even though it was like the cave of Zedekiah...

Eruvin 61

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Eruvin 61

ואין אנשי עיר קטנה מהלכין את כל עיר גדולה

And the residents of a small city may not walk through an entire large city.

מאי טעמא לאו משום דהני כלתה מדתן בחצי העיר והני כלתה מדתן בסוף העיר

What is the reason for this difference? Is it not because these, the residents of the small city, their measure of two thousand cubits terminated in the middle of the large city, and therefore they may walk only to the end of their two thousand cubits; and these, the residents of the large city, their measure of two thousand cubits terminated at the far end of the small city, allowing them to walk through the entire city as though it were four cubits and complete the two thousand cubit measure of their Shabbat limit on the other side of the city?

ורבי אידי אנשי אנשי תני ומוקים לה בנותן אבל מודד לא תנן

And Rabbi Idi, who said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi’s statement has no source, may hold that the mishna teaches the two cases with the same formulation. Just as it states: The residents of a large city may walk through an entire small city, it similarly states: The residents of a small city may walk through an entire large city. His version of the mishna did not state that the residents of a small city may not walk through an entire large city. And he establishes the mishna as referring to one who placed his eiruv inside the other city. Consequently, that city becomes his Shabbat residence, and he may walk anywhere in that city and an additional two thousand cubits beyond it. But we did not learn anything about one who was measuring two thousand cubits from his Shabbat residence outside the city, in which case it makes a difference whether the entire city is within his two thousand cubits or whether only part of it is within this limit.

ולא והתנן ולמודד שאמרו נותנין לו אלפים אמה שאפילו סוף מדתו כלה במערה

The Gemara asks: And did we not learn in the mishna about one who was measuring? Didn’t we learn in the mishna: And as for one who is measuring his Shabbat limit, with regard to whom the Sages said that one gives him two thousand cubits, that applies even if the end of his measurement terminates in the middle of a cave? Although a cave has the status of a private domain, he may enter only the part of the cave that is within his two thousand cubits. This case is directly parallel to the case of one whose two thousand cubits end in the middle of a city.

סוף העיר איצטריכא ליה דלא תנן

The Gemara answers: Although there is a source for the case of one whose limit ends in the middle of a city, it was nevertheless necessary for Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi to teach the case where one’s measure ends at the far end of the city, in which case the entire city is regarded as four cubits and the rest of the Shabbat limit is completed on the other side of the city, as we did not learn anything about such a case.

אמר רב נחמן מאן דתני אנשי לא משתבש ומאן דתני אין אנשי לא משתבש

With regard to the mishna cited above, Rav Naḥman said: One who teaches the following in the second clause: The residents of a small city may walk through an entire large city, does not err in his rendering of the mishna. And one who teaches: The residents of a small city may not walk through an entire large city, also does not err. Both renderings are plausible.

מאן דתני אנשי לא משתבש דמוקים לה בנותן ומאן דתני אין אנשי לא משתבש דמוקים לה במודד

Rav Naḥman explains: One who teaches: The residents of a small city may walk through an entire large city, does not err, as he establishes the mishna as referring to one who places his eiruv inside the other city. And one who teaches: The residents of a small city may not walk through an entire large city also does not err, as he establishes the mishna as referring to one who measures his Shabbat limit and arrives at the city from the outside.

וחסורי מחסרא והכי קתני אנשי עיר גדולה מהלכין את כל עיר קטנה ואין אנשי עיר קטנה מהלכין את כל עיר גדולה במה דברים אמורים במודד אבל מי שהיה בעיר גדולה והניח את עירובו בעיר קטנה היה בעיר קטנה והניח את עירובו בעיר גדולה מהלך את כולה וחוצה לה אלפים אמה

And the mishna is incomplete and it teaches the following: The residents of a large city may walk through an entire small city, but the residents of a small city may not walk through an entire large city. In what case is this statement said? It was said with regard to one who was measuring his two thousand cubits from his Shabbat residence. But one who was in the large city and placed his eiruv in the small city, and similarly one who was in the small city and placed his eiruv in the large city, he may walk through the entire city in which he placed his eiruv and beyond it two thousand cubits.

אמר רב יוסף אמר רמי בר אבא אמר רב הונא עיר שיושבת על שפת הנחל אם יש לפניה דקה ארבעה מודדים לה משפת הנחל ואם לאו אין מודדין לה אלא מפתח ביתו

Rav Yosef said that Rami bar Abba said that Rav Huna said: With regard to a city located on the edge of a ravine, if there is a barrier four cubits high in front of it, one measures its Shabbat limit from the edge of the ravine, as it is considered the border of the city. And if there is not a barrier four cubits high in front of it, the Shabbat limit is measured from the entrance of each person’s house, as the city is not considered a permanent settlement.

אמר ליה אביי דקה ארבע אמות אמרת לן עלה מאי שנא מכל דקי דעלמא דארבעה

Abaye said to him: You told us with regard to this case that a barrier four cubits high is required. What is different about this case that it requires a barrier that is higher than all other barriers, which must reach a height of only four handbreadths?

אמר ליה התם לא בעיתא תשמישתא הכא בעיתא תשמישתא

He said to him: There, use of the place is not frightening; here, use of the place is frightening. Generally, partitions serve a symbolic function, and therefore it is sufficient for the partition to be four handbreadths high. In this case, however, it is frightening to stand along the edge of the ravine without a protective barrier, and therefore a barrier four cubits high must be constructed for the safety of the residents.

אמר רב יוסף מנא אמינא לה דתניא התיר רבי שיהו בני גדר יורדין לחמתן ואין בני חמתן עולין לגדר מאי טעמא לאו משום דהני עבוד דקה והני לא עבוד דקה

Rav Yosef said: From where do I derive to say this halakha? As it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi permitted the residents of Geder, situated at the top of a slope, to descend on Shabbat to Ḥamtan, situated at the bottom of the slope, but the residents of Ḥamtan may not ascend to Geder. What is the reason? Is it not because these, the inhabitants of Geder, constructed a barrier at the lower edge of their city, and these, the members of Ḥamtan, did not construct a barrier at the upper edge of their city? Consequently, the residents of Geder measured their Shabbat limit from their barrier, and Ḥamtan was included in their two thousand cubits. The residents of Ḥamtan had to measure their Shabbat limits from their homes, and therefore Geder was not within their two thousand cubit limit.

כי אתא רב דימי אמר טטרוגי מטטרגי להו בני גדר לבני חמתן ומאי התיר התקין

The Gemara relates that when Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said: This ruling was issued not due to their respective Shabbat limits, but rather because the residents of Geder would assault [metatreg] the residents of Ḥamtan. And what does it mean that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi permitted the residents of Geder to descend to Ḥamtan, but not vice versa? He instituted this. In other words, this was not a halakhic ruling, but rather an ordinance instituted to protect the public welfare and prevent fighting.

ומאי שנא שבת דשכיחא בה שכרות

The Gemara asks: What is different about Shabbat that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi instituted this ordinance only for Shabbat and not for the rest of the week? The Gemara answers: Drunkenness is common on Shabbat, when people eat to their heart’s content. Therefore, there is a greater chance of violent behavior.

כי אזלי להתם נמי מטטרגי להו כלבא בלא מתיה שב שנין לא נבח

The Gemara asks: When the residents of Geder go to Ḥamtan, they will assault the residents there; of what use, then, is this ordinance? The Gemara answers, citing a popular saying: A dog that is not in its place will not bark for seven years. On its own turf, a dog barks readily, but it becomes scared in unfamiliar surroundings and remains silent. Similarly, the people of Geder are not nearly as bold when they visit Ḥamtan as they are in their own town.

השתא נמי מטטרגי בני חמתן לבני גדר כולי האי לא כייפי להו

The Gemara asks: If so, we should be concerned about the reverse scenario, that now too, the residents of Ḥamtan, in their home territory, will take revenge and assault the residents of Geder. The Gemara answers: The people of Geder would not be submissive to such an extent. While visiting Ḥamtan, they would not initiate fights, but they would certainly fight back if they were attacked. Consequently, the people of Ḥamtan would not dare initiate hostilities with them. Therefore, there is no concern about the safety of either group.

רב ספרא אמר עיר העשויה כקשת הואי

Rav Safra said: Geder was a city shaped like a bow, whose two ends were separated by less than four thousand cubits. The empty space of the bow was viewed as though it were filled with houses, and its Shabbat limit was measured from the imaginary bowstring stretched between the two ends of the bow. Consequently, Ḥamtan was included in its Shabbat limit, and the residents of Geder were permitted to go there on Shabbat. With regard to the inhabitants of Ḥamtan, however, that same area between the ends of Geder was viewed as empty space, and therefore the houses of Geder along the arc of the bow were beyond their Shabbat limit.

רב דימי בר חיננא אמר אנשי עיר גדולה ואנשי עיר קטנה הואי

Rav Dimi bar Ḥinana said: The people of Geder were residents of a large city, and the people of Ḥamtan were residents of a small city. Consequently, the residents of the large city, Geder, could walk through all of Ḥamtan, the small city; but the residents of Ḥamtan could walk only through part of Geder, as explained previously.

רב כהנא מתני הכי רב טביומי מתני הכי רב ספרא ורב דימי בר חיננא חד אמר עיר העשויה כקשת הואי וחד אמר אנשי עיר קטנה ואנשי עיר גדולה הואי:

Rav Kahana taught it that way, as stated previously; whereas Rav Tavyomi taught it more concisely, in this way: Rav Safra and Rav Dimi bar Ḥinana disagreed about the matter. One of them said: Geder was a city shaped like a bow; and one of them said: The people of Ḥamtan were residents of a small city and the people of Geder were residents of a large city.

מתני׳ אנשי עיר גדולה מהלכין את כל עיר קטנה ואנשי עיר קטנה מהלכין את כל עיר גדולה כיצד מי שהיה בעיר גדולה ונתן את עירובו בעיר קטנה בעיר קטנה ונתן את עירובו בעיר גדולה מהלך את כולה וחוצה לה אלפים אמה

MISHNA: The residents of a large city may walk through an entire small city, and the residents of a small city may walk through an entire large city, even if part of it is located more than two thousand cubits from their city. How so? One who was in a large city and placed his eiruv in a small city, or one who was in a small city and placed his eiruv in a large city, may walk through the entire city in which he placed his eiruv and another two thousand cubits beyond it, as the entire city is considered as though it were only four cubits.

רבי עקיבא אומר אין לו אלא ממקום עירובו אלפים אמה אמר להן רבי עקיבא אי אתם מודים לי בנותן עירובו במערה שאין לו אלא ממקום עירובו אלפים אמה

Rabbi Akiva says: He has only two thousand cubits from the place of his eiruv, as the actual area of the city is included in the calculation. Rabbi Akiva said to the Rabbis: Do you not concede to me that one who places his eiruv in a cave has only two thousand cubits from the place of his eiruv, and that consequently the entire cave is not considered as merely four cubits?

אמרו לו אימתי בזמן שאין בה דיורין אבל יש בה דיורין מהלך את כולה וחוצה לה אלפים אמה נמצא קל תוכה מעל גבה

The Rabbis said to him: When does this apply? When the cave has no residents. But if it has residents, it is considered as though it were only four cubits, and one may walk through all of it and another two thousand cubits beyond it. Consequently, the halakha with regard to an eiruv placed inside a cave is sometimes more lenient than the halakha governing an eiruv placed in the area above the cave. If one places his eiruv inside a cave that has residents, he has two thousand cubits beyond the cave; if he places it above the cave, where there are no residents, he has only two thousand cubits from the place of his eiruv.

ולמודד שאמרו נותנין אלפים אמה שאפילו סוף מדתו כלה במערה:

And as for one who is measuring his Shabbat limit, with regard to whom the Sages said that one gives him two thousand cubits, that measurement applies even if the end of his measurement terminates in the middle of a cave. He may not walk further into the cave, even if the cave is inhabited.

גמ׳ אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל שבת בעיר חריבה לרבנן מהלך את כולה וחוצה לה אלפים אמה הניח את עירובו בעיר חריבה אין לו ממקום עירובו אלא אלפים אמה רבי אלעזר אומר אחד שבת ואחד הניח מהלך את כולה וחוצה לה אלפים אמה

GEMARA: Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: If one established his Shabbat residence in a desolate city whose walls are still standing, according to the Rabbis he may walk through all of it as though it were four cubits, and he may walk an additional two thousand cubits beyond it. If, however, he merely placed his eiruv in a desolate city, he has only two thousand cubits from the place of his eiruv. The Rabbis distinguish between one who establishes his Shabbat residence by actually being present in that location at the onset of Shabbat and one who does so by placing his eiruv there before Shabbat. Rabbi Elazar says: Whether he established his Shabbat residence through his physical presence or he merely placed his eiruv there, he may walk through all of it and another two thousand cubits beyond it.

מיתיבי אמר להן רבי עקיבא אי אתם מודים לי בנותן את עירובו במערה שאין לו ממקום עירובו אלא אלפים אמה אמרו לו אימתי בזמן שאין בה דיורין הא באין בה דיורין מודו ליה

The Gemara raises an objection based upon the mishna. Rabbi Akiva said to the Rabbis: Do you not concede to me that one who places his eiruv in a cave has only two thousand cubits from the place of his eiruv? They said to him: When does this apply? When the cave has no residents. Consequently, when it has no residents the Rabbis concede to Rabbi Akiva that one has only two thousand cubits from the place of his eiruv. This contradicts Rabbi Elazar’s assertion that, according to the Rabbis, even if one places his eiruv in the abandoned city, he may walk through all of it and another two thousand cubits beyond it.

מאי אין בה דיורין אינה ראויה לדירה

The Gemara responds: What is the meaning of the qualification that it has no residents? It means that the place is not fit for residence. If, however, the city is suitable for habitation, it is considered like four cubits even if it is currently uninhabited.

תא שמע שבת בעיר אפילו היא גדולה כאנטיוכיא במערה אפילו היא כמערת צדקיהו מלך יהודה מהלך את כולה וחוצה לה אלפים אמה קתני עיר דומיא דמערה מה מערה חריבה אף עיר חריבה ושבת אין אבל הניח לא

Come and hear another difficulty from the following baraita: If one established his Shabbat residence through his physical presence in a city, even if it is as large as Antioch, or in a cave, even if it is particularly large, like the Cave of Zedekiah, king of Judah, he may walk through all of it and another two thousand cubits beyond it. The baraita teaches the case of a city that is similar to that of a cave: Just as a cave is presumably desolate, i.e., uninhabited, so too the city must be one that is desolate. And only in the case where he established his Shabbat residence through his physical presence would yes, this halakha apply; but if he merely placed his eiruv there, no, he may not measure his two thousand cubits from the edge of the city.

מני אילימא רבי עקיבא מאי איריא חריבה אפילו ישיבה נמי אלא לאו רבנן וטעמא דשבת אין אבל הניח לא

The Gemara continues clarifying the baraita: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? If you say it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, why did the baraita specifically teach the case of a desolate city? Even if it was inhabited, the same halakha should also apply, as Rabbi Akiva holds that even if one placed his eiruv in an inhabited city, he has only two thousand cubits from the place of his eiruv. Rather, is it not in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis? And nonetheless, the reason is that one established his Shabbat residence through his physical presence. In such a case, yes, one may walk through the entire city and another two thousand cubits beyond it. But if one merely placed his eiruv there, he would not be permitted to walk more than two thousand cubits from his eiruv, which would contradict the opinion of Rabbi Elazar.

לא תימא עיר דומיא דמערה אלא אימא מערה דומיא דעיר מה עיר ישיבה אף מערה ישיבה ורבי עקיבא היא דאמר אין לו ממקום עירובו אלא אלפים אמה ובשבת מודי

The Gemara rejects this argument and argues that the initial inference was incorrect. Do not say that the baraita is referring to a city that is similar to a cave. Rather, say that it is referring to a cave that is similar to a city: Just as the city is presumably inhabited, so too the cave must be one that is inhabited. The baraita is then in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who said that if one merely places his eiruv in the cave, he has only two thousand cubits from the place of his eiruv. However, if one established his Shabbat residence there through his physical presence, even Rabbi Akiva concedes that the entire cave is considered as though it were four cubits, and he may walk two thousand cubits beyond the cave.

והא כמערת צדקיהו קתני כמערת צדקיהו ולא כמערת צדקיהו כמערת צדקיהו גדולה ולא כמערת צדקיהו דאילו התם חריבה והכא ישיבה

The Gemara asks: Doesn’t the baraita teach that this halakha applies even to a cave like the Cave of Zedekiah, which was uninhabited? The Gemara answers: The baraita is referring to a cave that is like the Cave of Zedekiah in one respect and not like the Cave of Zedekiah in other respects. It is like the Cave of Zedekiah in that the cave is as large as that one. And it is not exactly like the Cave of Zedekiah, as there, with regard to Zedekiah’s cave, it was desolate, and here the baraita is referring to a cave that is inhabited.

מר יהודה אשכחינהו לבני מברכתא דקא מותבי עירובייהו בבי כנישתא דבי אגובר אמר להו גוו ביה טפי כי היכי דלישתרי לכו טפי

The Gemara relates that Mar Yehuda once found the residents of Mavrakhta placing their eiruvin in the synagogue of Beit Agovar. He said to them: Place your eiruv farther into the synagogue, so that more will be permitted to you, as the Shabbat limit is measured from the spot where the eiruv is deposited. Mar Yehuda holds that even when an eiruv is placed in an inhabited city, the two thousand cubits are measured from the location of the eiruv rather than from the edge of the city.

אמר ליה רבא פלגאה בעירובין לית דחש להא דרבי עקיבא:

Rava said to him: Argumentative one! With regard to the halakhot of eiruv, nobody is concerned about this opinion of Rabbi Akiva, as the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. Consequently, no matter where one places his eiruv in a city, the entire city is considered as though it were four cubits, and he is permitted to walk two thousand cubits beyond the edge of the city.

הדרן עלך כיצד מעברין

 

מתני׳ הדר עם הנכרי בחצר או עם מי שאינו מודה בעירוב הרי זה אוסר עליו

MISHNA: One who resides with a gentile in the same courtyard, or one who lives in the same courtyard with one who does not accept the principle of eiruv, even though he is not a gentile, such as a Samaritan [Kuti], this person renders it prohibited for him to carry from his own house into the courtyard or from the courtyard into his house, unless he rents this person’s rights in the courtyard, as will be explained below.

רבי אליעזר בן יעקב אומר לעולם אינו אוסר עד שיהו שני ישראלים אוסרין זה על זה

Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: Actually, the gentile does not render it prohibited for one to carry, unless there are two Jews living in the same courtyard who themselves would prohibit one another from carrying if there were no eiruv. In such a case, the presence of the gentile renders the eiruv ineffective. However, if only one Jew lives there, the gentile does not render it prohibited for him to carry in the courtyard.

אמר רבן גמליאל מעשה בצדוקי אחד שהיה דר עמנו במבוי בירושלים ואמר לנו אבא מהרו והוציאו את הכלים למבוי עד שלא יוציא ויאסר עליכם

Rabban Gamliel said: There was an incident involving a certain Sadducee who lived with us in the same alleyway in Jerusalem, who renounced his rights to the alleyway before Shabbat. And Father said to us: Hurry and take out your utensils to the alleyway to establish possession of it, before he changes his mind and takes out his own utensils so as to reclaim his rights, in which case he would render it prohibited for you to use the entire alleyway.

רבי יהודה אומר בלשון אחר מהרו ועשו צרכיכם במבוי עד שלא יוציא ויאסר עליכם:

Rabbi Yehuda says: Rabban Gamliel’s father spoke to them with a different formulation, saying: Hurry and do whatever you must do in the alleyway prior to Shabbat, before he takes out his utensils and renders it prohibited for you to use the alleyway. In other words, you may not bring out utensils to the alleyway at all on Shabbat, as the institution of an eiruv cannot be used in the neighborhood of a Sadducee. This is because, even if he renounced his rights to the alleyway, he can always retract and reclaim them.

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

Scroll To Top