עירובין נב

עירובין נב

אָמַר: ״תְּהֵא שְׁבִיתָתִי בְּצִינְתָא״. אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: מַאי דַּעְתָּיךְ, רַבִּי מֵאִיר וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה — הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, וְאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: מַחֲלוֹקֶת בְּ״מָקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי״,

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?

וְהָא רַב נַחְמָן, וְתַנְיָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הֲדַרִי בִּי.

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.

אָמַר רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא: הֲרֵי אָמְרוּ שָׁבַת יֵשׁ לוֹ אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת. הַנּוֹתֵן אֶת עֵירוּבוֹ, יֵשׁ לוֹ אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת, אוֹ לָא?

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.

אָמַר רָבָא, תָּא שְׁמַע: לֹא אָמְרוּ מְעָרְבִין בְּפַת אֶלָּא לְהָקֵל עַל הֶעָשִׁיר, שֶׁלֹּא יֵצֵא וִיעָרֵב בְּרַגְלָיו. וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ אֵין לוֹ — הַאי לְהָקֵל?! לְהַחֲמִיר הוּא!

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.

אֲפִילּוּ הָכִי נִיחָא לֵיהּ, כִּי הֵיכִי דְּלָא נִטְרַח וְנִיפּוֹק.

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.

מַתְנִי׳ מִי שֶׁיָּצָא לֵילֵךְ בְּעִיר שֶׁמְּעָרְבִין בָּהּ, וְהֶחְזִירוֹ חֲבֵירוֹ — הוּא מוּתָּר לֵילֵךְ, וְכׇל בְּנֵי הָעִיר אֲסוּרִין, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה.

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.

רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: כֹּל שֶׁהוּא יָכוֹל לְעָרֵב וְלֹא עֵירַב — הֲרֵי זֶה חַמָּר גַּמָּל.

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.

גְּמָ׳ מַאי שְׁנָא אִיהוּ וּמַאי שְׁנָא אִינְהוּ? אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן — כְּגוֹן שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ שְׁנֵי בָתִּים, וּבֵינֵיהֶן שְׁנֵי תְּחוּמֵי שַׁבָּת.

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.

אִיהוּ, כֵּיוָן דִּנְפַק לֵיהּ לְאוֹרְחָא — הָוֵה לֵיהּ עָנִי. וְהָנֵי עֲשִׁירֵי נִינְהוּ.

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.

תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: מִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ שְׁנֵי בָתִּים, וּבֵינֵיהֶן שְׁנֵי תְּחוּמֵי שַׁבָּת, כֵּיוָן שֶׁהֶחְזִיק בַּדֶּרֶךְ — קָנָה עֵירוּב, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה.

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.

יָתֵר עַל כֵּן אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה: אֲפִילּוּ מְצָאוֹ חֲבֵירוֹ וְאָמַר לוֹ: ״לִין פֹּה, עֵת חַמָּה הוּא, עֵת צִינָּה הוּא״ — לְמָחָר מַשְׁכִּים וְהוֹלֵךְ.

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.

אָמַר רַבָּה: לוֹמַר — כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דִּצְרִיךְ, כִּי פְּלִיגִי — לְהַחְזִיק.

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.

וְרַב יוֹסֵף אָמַר: לְהַחְזִיק — דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דִּצְרִיךְ, כִּי פְּלִיגִי — לוֹמַר.

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.

כְּמַאן אָזְלָא הָא דְּאָמַר עוּלָּא: מִי שֶׁהֶחְזִיק בַּדֶּרֶךְ וְהֶחְזִירוֹ חֲבֵירוֹ — הֲרֵי הוּא מוּחְזָר וּמוּחְזָק.

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.

אִי מוּחְזָר, לָמָּה מוּחְזָק? וְאִי מוּחְזָק, לָמָּה מוּחְזָר?

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?

הָכִי קָאָמַר: אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמּוּחְזָר — מוּחְזָק. כְּמַאן — כְּרַב יוֹסֵף, וְאַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה.

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.

רַב יְהוּדָה בַּר אִישְׁתָּתָא אַיְיתִי לֵיהּ כַּלְכַּלָּה דְפֵירֵי לְרַב נָתָן בַּר אוֹשַׁעְיָא. כִּי הֲוָה אָזֵיל, שַׁבְקֵיהּ עַד דִּנְחֵית דַּרְגָּא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: בִּית הָכָא. לִמְחַר קַדֵּים וֶאֱזִיל,

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.

כְּמַאן — כְּרַב יוֹסֵף, וְאַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר יְהוּדָה?

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.

לָא, כְּרַבָּה, וְאַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה.

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.

רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר כֹּל שֶׁיָּכוֹל לְעָרֵב כּוּ׳. הָא תְּנֵינָא חֲדָא זִימְנָא: סָפֵק, רַבִּי מֵאִיר וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמְרִים: הֲרֵי זֶה חַמָּר גַּמָּל.

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.

אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת לָא תֵּימָא טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר סָפֵק עֵירַב סָפֵק לֹא עֵירַב הוּא דְּהָוֵי חַמָּר גַּמָּל, אֲבָל וַדַּאי לֹא עֵירַב — לָא הָוֵי חַמָּר גַּמָּל.

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.

אֶלָּא: אֲפִילּוּ וַדַּאי לֹא עֵירַב הָוֵי חַמָּר גַּמָּל. דְּהָא הָכָא וַדַּאי לֹא עֵירַב, וְקָא הָוֵי חַמָּר גַּמָּל.

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.

מַתְנִי׳ מִי שֶׁיָּצָא חוּץ לַתְּחוּם אֲפִילּוּ אַמָּה אַחַת לֹא יִכָּנֵס. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: שְׁתַּיִם — יִכָּנֵס, שָׁלֹשׁ — לֹא יִכָּנֵס.

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.

גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: רַגְלוֹ אַחַת בְּתוֹךְ הַתְּחוּם, וְרַגְלוֹ אַחַת חוּץ לַתְּחוּם — לֹא יִכָּנֵס, דִּכְתִיב: ״אִם תָּשִׁיב מִשַּׁבָּת רַגְלֶךָ״. ״רַגְלְךָ״ כְּתִיב.

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.

וְהָתַנְיָא: רַגְלוֹ אַחַת בְּתוֹךְ הַתְּחוּם וְרַגְלוֹ אַחַת חוּץ לַתְּחוּם — יִכָּנֵס! הָא מַנִּי? אֲחֵרִים הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: אֲחֵרִים אוֹמְרִים: לִמְקוֹם שֶׁרוּבּוֹ הוּא נִזְקָר.

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.

אִיכָּא דְאָמְרִי, אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: רַגְלוֹ אַחַת בְּתוֹךְ הַתְּחוּם וְרַגְלוֹ אַחַת חוּץ לַתְּחוּם — יִכָּנֵס, דִּכְתִיב: ״אִם תָּשִׁיב מִשַּׁבָּת רַגְלֶךָ״ — ״רַגְלֶיךָ״ קָרֵינַן.

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.

וְהַתַּנְיָא: לֹא יִכָּנֵס! הוּא דְּאָמַר כַּאֲחֵרִים, דְּתַנְיָא: לִמְקוֹם שֶׁרוּבּוֹ הוּא נִזְקָר.

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.

רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר שְׁתַּיִם יִכָּנֵס שָׁלֹשׁ לֹא יִכָּנֵס. וְהָתַנְיָא, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: אַחַת — יִכָּנֵס, שְׁתַּיִם — לֹא יִכָּנֵס. לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא דַּעֲקַר חֲדָא וְקָם אַתַּרְתֵּי. הָא דַּעֲקַר תַּרְתֵּי וְקָם אַתְּלָת.

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 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.

וְהָתַנְיָא, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: אֲפִילּוּ אַמָּה אַחַת לֹא יִכָּנֵס! כִּי תַּנְיָא הָהִיא לְמוֹדֵד, דִּתְנַן: וְלַמּוֹדֵד שֶׁאָמְרוּ נוֹתְנִין לוֹ אַלְפַּיִם אַמָּה — אֲפִילּוּ סוֹף מִדָּתוֹ כָּלֶה בִּמְעָרָה.

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.

מַתְנִי׳ מִי שֶׁהֶחֱשִׁיךְ חוּץ לַתְּחוּם אֲפִילּוּ אַמָּה אַחַת לֹא יִכָּנֵס. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: אֲפִילּוּ חֲמֵשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה אַמּוֹת יִכָּנֵס, שֶׁאֵין הַמָּשׁוֹחוֹת מְמַצִּין אֶת הַמִּדּוֹת מִפְּנֵי הַטּוֹעִין.

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.

גְּמָ׳ תָּנָא: מִפְּנֵי טוֹעֵי הַמִּדָּה.

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.

הַדְרָן עֲלָךְ מִי שֶׁהוֹצִיאוּהוּ

מַתְנִי׳ כֵּיצַד מְעַבְּרִין אֶת הֶעָרִים? בַּיִת נִכְנָס בַּיִת יוֹצֵא, פִּגּוּם נִכְנָס פִּגּוּם יוֹצֵא, הָיוּ שָׁם גְּדוּדִיּוֹת גְּבוֹהוֹת עֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים,

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,