Eruvin 41b — the Talmud in English

If you might say that it applies to all of them,

and according to Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav, they complete the fast on the eve of Shabbat,

Rabbah asked him of this,

[as above, on folio 40b] whether they complete it,

and he did not resolve it for him,

and necessarily, in this matter he did not say in the name of Rav that they complete it.

And we raise a difficulty against it:

And according to your reasoning,

that you bring proof from here:

That which Mar Zutra expounded in the name of Rav Huna: the halakha is that one fasts and completes,

on the eve of Shabbat! It should likewise be difficult:

Rabbah asked him,

[above, there]

Rav Huna, and he did not resolve it for him,

that he completes it?!

Rather,

for this reason it is impossible to raise this difficulty: because

that

which he did not resolve it was

before

he

heard

this statement of Rav above, that the Sages hold that one fasts and completes.

And that

which he expounded that he completes it was

after he heard it

from his master Rav, that Rav truly applies to all of them.

Here too,

you should not raise a difficulty against Rav Yehuda, that he did not resolve it from this statement of Rav.

That

which he did not resolve it—

before he heard it

from his master Rav.

That

which he resolved it—

after he heard it.

Mar Zutra expounded in the name of Rav Huna: the halakha—

one fasts and completes!

We have returned to you, chapter “With All [Kinds of] Eruvin.”

Introduction:

A. One who establishes his Shabbat residence wherever he is has four cubits around him, and from them he begins to measure two thousand cubits, within which he is permitted to walk on Shabbat.

B. One who establishes his Shabbat residence in a city: the entire city and its “extension” [seventy cubits and remnants outside the city] are considered for him like four cubits, and he has two thousand cubits in every direction from the end of the city’s extension and onward.

C. One who establishes his Shabbat residence within an enclosure of partitions: the entire enclosure is like four cubits, and he has two thousand cubits from the partitions and onward.

Mishna:

One whom gentiles took out

on Shabbat beyond the boundary,

or

whom

an evil spirit

that seized him took out beyond the boundary [that is, a demon entered him and his mind became deranged],

he has no

outside the boundary

except four cubits

alone. [But he does have four cubits, for there is no person who does not have four cubits in which to walk].

If they returned him —

the gentiles or his evil spirit — on that same day [Meiri] into the boundary,

it is as though he did not leave,

and the entire city is considered for him like four cubits as at first, and he has two thousand cubits outside the city in every direction. [The Mishna is speaking only of one whom they took out against his will and whom they returned against his will. The law of one who left intentionally and returned intentionally will be explained in the Gemara shortly].

They led him —

the gentiles or his evil spirit —

to another city

that was surrounded by partitions, or

placed him in an animal pen

of animals

or in a courtyard [

a large animal pen belonging to the city, Rashi above, page 18a] that are enclosed and whose enclosure is large:

Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya say: He may walk through all of it.

Since they are enclosed by partitions, they are like four cubits, even though he had not established his Shabbat residence in them on the eve of Shabbat .

Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Akiva say: He has no

there

except four cubits,

because an enclosure of partitions in which he had not established his Shabbat residence on the eve of Shabbat is not treated as four cubits.

An incident occurred in which

these Sages

came from Flandrissin [

a place-name]

and their ship sailed out to sea

on Shabbat, and they went beyond the boundary.

Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya walked through all of it,

the ship.

Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Akiva did not move from their four cubits,

because

they wished to be stringent upon themselves !

We hold like Rabbi Yehuda below, page 45a: one who is found within the boundary of a city during twilight, and whose intention is to enter the city, acquires his residence in the city even though he does not know that he is within the city boundary, and he is like one of the residents of the city. But if he is outside the boundary, he acquires his residence where he is.

Once they did not enter the harbor until it became dark.

They said to Rabban Gamliel: What about us—may we descend

from the ship into the city? That is, they asked him whether they had already been within the city boundary during twilight, for if they had been within the city boundary, they could descend into the city and walk in it and outside it like the other residents of the city [according to Rashi and Rabbeinu Yehonatan].

He said to them: You are permitted, for I had already been looking [

through a special tube, as the Gemara explains]

and we were within the boundary before it became dark .

Gemara:

The Sages taught:

A.

Three things drive a person out of his mind and out of the mind of his Creator [

permitted worldly matters in which a person may engage—this is “his mind”; and words of Torah and mitzva—this is “the mind of his Creator,” Etz Yosef], and

these are:

Gentile idol-worshippers, an evil spirit, and the exacting effects of poverty [

things over which a person is exacting in order to save expenses, because he is poor] .

And we explain:

What practical difference is there?

To pray for them [

to request mercy for them].

B.

Three do not see the face of Gehenna [

not only are they saved from the judgment of Gehenna, but they do not even see it, Maharsha], and

these are:

one who suffers from

the exacting effects of poverty, intestinal illness, and creditors [

one who has creditors, Rashi; and see Tosafot].

And some say: Even one who has a wicked wife.

And we explain:

And the other one —

who did not also state a wicked wife — because

it is a mitzva to divorce a wicked wife,

and once he divorces her, he is freed from her.

And the other one —

nevertheless states a wicked wife, because

sometimes her marriage settlement is large,

and

alternatively, he has children from her and cannot divorce her,

because he cannot withstand that [Maharsha, Pesachim 113b].

And we explain:

What practical difference is there

that these three do not see the face of Gehenna?

To accept

these sufferings

out of love,

for they atone for him.

C.

Three die while they are

still

speaking,

for even if they have much vitality, so that they speak, nevertheless they die suddenly,

and these are:

One with intestinal illness,

and

a woman who has given birth [

a woman in childbirth]

and one with hidrokon [

an illness of the mouth, Rashi] .

And we explain:

What practical difference is there?

To examine them for burial provisions [

to prepare shrouds for them, which are provisions for the road for the dead; and “provisions for the road” is translated as “provisions for the journey,” Rashi, Avoda Zara 17a].

Rav Naḥman said in the name of Shmuel: One who left

his boundary

intentionally [

of his own will],

has no

in the place to which he left

except four cubits.

And we raise an objection to this:

Is it obvious!

For

now, one whom gentiles took out

against his will is taught in our Mishna, that

he has only four cubits; one who left intentionally,

who committed a prohibition of his own will, is it

necessary

to say that he has only four cubits?!

Rather, say

this is what Rav Naḥman said in Shmuel’s name: even if gentiles took him out [according to Rashi], if he

returned

into his boundary

intentionally

and unlawfully,

he has only four cubits,

and we do not say that it is as though he did not leave, as they said in our Mishna when gentiles returned him against his will.

And we raise an objection to this:

This too we learned

in our Mishna.

For it teaches:

“The gentiles returned him, it is as though he did not leave,”

and infer from it:

“They returned him”

the gentiles against his will

is specifically as though he did not leave, but if gentiles took him out —

as in the Mishna, which speaks of when gentiles took him out, as it teaches at the beginning —

and he returned intentionally, he has only four cubits!

Rather, say

this is what it means:

He left intentionally and the gentiles returned him

against his will,

he has only four cubits,

since he left intentionally.

And we raise an objection to this:

This too we learned

in our Mishna, for it teaches: One whom

“they took out”

gentiles, and so on,

“and they returned him, it is as though he did not leave.”

And infer from it:

It is when they took him out and returned him that it is as though he did not leave, but if he left intentionally

even if gentiles were the ones who returned him,

it is not.

And we reject this: Rav Naḥman needed to inform us that if one left intentionally and they returned him, he has only four cubits.

For

you might have said

that this law cannot be proven from our Mishna, because our Mishna

teaches with regard to two separate cases,

that is: the latter clause, which speaks of gentiles returning him, does not refer back to the first clause, which speaks of their taking him out; and this is how the Mishna should be read:

One whom gentiles took out

whether he is standing outside,

or

whether he

returned intentionally has only four cubits.

But if he left

even

intentionally and gentiles returned him, it is as though he did not leave.

Rav Naḥman teaches us

that the latter clause refers back to the first clause, and we say that it is as though he did not leave only when he left without his knowledge and returned without his knowledge .

They asked Rabba:

Gentiles took him out — so that he has only four cubits — and

he needed to relieve himself, what is the law

regarding leaving beyond his four cubits for a private place?

He said to them: Great is human dignity, which overrides a negative commandment of the Torah,

that is, the prohibition of “Do not deviate from the matter that they tell you, right or left,” not to transgress the words of the Sages [but another negative commandment is not overridden, Berakhot 20b].

And if so, since the laws of boundaries are rabbinic, human dignity overrides them.

The Nehardeans said

and added:

If he is intelligent,

this person who needed to relieve himself, and the Sages gave him permission to leave beyond his four cubits:

let him enter a

private place that is within the

boundary, and once he has entered —

he has entered [once he entered, he entered], for since he entered with permission, his status is no worse than if gentiles had returned him, concerning which we learned in our Mishna that it is as though he did not leave, and he has his original boundary, as it was before he left.

Rabbeinu Asher wrote: “The explanation is: if he is intelligent, when he leaves beyond his four cubits to seek a private place to relieve himself, he should go toward his boundary and not in the other directions. If he does not find a private place until he enters the boundary, he returns to the law of his original boundary, since he entered with permission. But if he finds a private place before he enters his boundary, he has no permission to walk farther.”

The Rosh wrote: “The explanation is that if he is clever, when he goes beyond his four cubits to seek a private place to relieve himself, he should go in the direction of his limit and not in the other directions. If he does not find a private place until he enters the limit, he returns to the law of his original limit, since he entered with permission. But if he finds a private place before entering his limit, he is not permitted to walk any farther.”

Rav Pappa said:

A. Produce that left beyond its boundary through an Israelite has only four cubits there, by the law of a person who left beyond his boundary; and the produce is likewise forbidden for eating. [For every person; this is the accepted law, Mishna Berura, section 405].

B. But

produce that left beyond its boundary

and

returned

to its place,

even if

it left

intentionally [even if it returned intentionally], its return benefited it in two respects: first,

that

it did not lose its place,

and it is in its original boundary as at first.

Second, it is permitted for eating.

What is the reason?

They are under duress,

the produce being in the hands of the person who took it out.

Just as, in the case of a person, when they took him out under duress and returned him, he returned to his boundary, so too the produce returns to its boundary and to permission for eating [according to Rashi’s wording on page 42a, s.v. “if you say.” What was explained concerning “they left intentionally”—see what is explained at the end of the sugya].

Rav Yosef bar Shemaya raised an objection to Rav Pappa:

But we learned in a beraita:

Rabbi Neḥemya and Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov say: They remain forbidden forever

produce that left beyond its boundary,

until they return to their place,

and they are also

unintentional,

for we require two favorable factors in order to permit them: that they return to their place, and that both the leaving and the returning be unintentional [so it appears necessary to explain according to the sugya and Rashi below].

And this is difficult for Rav Pappa:

When unintentional, yes,

but

when intentional, no!

Yet you said that if they returned, we do not distinguish between unintentional and intentional?!

And we answer:

It is a dispute among Tannaim,

for there is a Tanna who disagrees with Rabbi Neḥemya and permits them when they merely return. It does not matter to us that it was intentional, and Rav Pappa follows that Tanna.

As it was taught: Produce that left beyond its boundary

and had not yet returned: if it left

unintentionally, it may be eaten

there by everyone [both by the one who took it out and by others who live there or who came there by means of an eruv, Rashi according to the understanding of Shaar HaTziyun, section 405, unlike Maharsha].

If it left

intentionally, it may not be eaten

by anyone.