Eruvin 41b (מא:) — the Talmud in English

If you might think that it applies to all of them

and that according to Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav one completes the fast on the eve of Shabbat,

did Rabbah not ask Rav Yehuda

[as above, folio 40b] whether one completes it,

and he did not resolve it for him,

and necessarily, in this matter he did not state in the name of Rav that one completes the fast.

And we raise an objection to this:

But according to your reasoning,

who bring proof from here:

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

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

Did he not ask

[above, there]

Rabbah, and he did not resolve it for him

that one completes it?!

Rather,

there is no basis for challenging it in this way, because

this

fact that he did not resolve it occurred

before

the time

he heard

from Rav Huna this teaching of Rav above, that the Sages hold that one fasts and completes the fast.

And this

fact that he expounded that one completes the fast was

after he heard it

from his teacher, Rav: that Rav’s statement indeed applies to all of them.

Here too,

you should not challenge Rav Yehuda, who did not resolve it, on the basis of Rav’s statement. For

this

fact that he did not resolve it was

before he heard it

from his teacher, Rav.

This

fact that he did resolve it was

after he heard it.

Mar Zutra expounded in the name of Rav Huna: The halakha is that one

fasts and completes the fast!

We shall return to you, chapter “With all things one may establish an eruv”

Introduction:

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

B. One who establishes residence in a city: the entire city and its “extension” [seventy cubits and remnants beyond 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 residence within an enclosure of partitions: the entire enclosure is considered like four cubits, and he has two thousand cubits from the partitions and onward.

Mishna:

One whom gentiles took out

on Shabbat beyond the Shabbat limit,

or

whom

an evil spirit

that seized him took out beyond the Shabbat limit [that is, a demon entered him and disturbed his mind],

has no

beyond the Shabbat limit

except four cubits

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

If they returned him —

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

it is as though he never left

, and the entire city is considered for him like four cubits, as it was initially, and beyond the city he has two thousand cubits 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 below].

If 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, 18a] that are enclosed and whose enclosure is large:

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

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

Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Akiva say: He has no

there

except four cubits,

for an enclosure of partitions in which he did not establish residence on the eve of Shabbat is not treated as four cubits.

An incident occurred in which

these Sages

came from Plandrassin [

a place name],

and their ship was carried out to sea

on Shabbat, and they went beyond the Shabbat limit.

Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya traversed all of it

—the entire ship.

Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Akiva did not move beyond four cubits,

because

they wished to be stringent with themselves!

We hold in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda below, 45a, that one who was found within a city’s limit at twilight, and intended to enter the city, acquired residence in the city even though he did not know that he was within the city’s limit, and is therefore like one of the city’s inhabitants. But if he was beyond the limit, he acquired residence where he was.

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

They said to Rabban Gamliel: What is the law concerning our disembarking

from the ship into the city? That is, they asked him whether they had already been within the city’s limit at twilight, for if they had been within the city’s limit they could disembark into the city and walk through it and beyond it like the other inhabitants of the city [based on Rashi and Rabbeinu Yehonatan].

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

through a special tube, as the Gemara explains]

and we were within the limit before it became dark.

Gemara:

The Sages taught:

a.

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

ordinary matters in which a person is permitted to engage are “his mind,” while Torah and mitzva matters are “the mind of his Creator,” Etz Yosef], and

these are they:

Gentiles, an evil spirit, and the minutiae of poverty [

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

And we explain:

What practical difference does this have?

To request mercy for them [

to ask for mercy on their behalf].

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 they:

one who suffers from

the minutiae of poverty, intestinal illness, and creditors [

one who has creditors, Rashi; see Tosafot].

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

And we explain:

But the other —

the one who did not also mention a bad wife —

because a bad wife it is a mitzva to divorce,

and once he divorces her he is rid of her.

And the other —

nevertheless mentioned a bad wife, because

sometimes her marriage contract is substantial,

and

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

because he cannot bear the resulting burden [Maharsha, Pesachim 113b].

And we explain:

What practical difference does it have

that these three do not see the face of Gehenna?

To accept

these afflictions

out of love,

for they atone for him.

c.

Three die while they are

still

speaking,

for even when they possess considerable vitality and are speaking, they nevertheless die suddenly,

and these are they:

One with intestinal illness,

and

a woman in childbirth [

a woman giving birth]

and one with hidrukkan [

an illness of the mouth, Rashi].

And we explain:

What practical difference does this have?

To feel their grave-clothes [

to prepare shrouds for them, which are provisions for the journey of the dead; “provisions for the journey” is translated as zuvada le-orha, Rashi, Avoda Zara 17a].

Rav Naḥman said that Shmuel said: One who left

beyond his limit

intentionally [

of his own will]

has no

at the place to which he went out

except four cubits.

We raise a difficulty against this:

Isn’t it obvious?

For

now, if one whom gentiles took out

against his will, our Mishna states that he

has only four cubits; one who left intentionally,

having voluntarily committed a prohibition, is it

necessary

to say that he has only four cubits?!

Rather, say

that this is what Rav Naḥman said in the name of Shmuel: Even if gentiles took him out [according to Rashi], if he

returned

into his limit

intentionally

and unlawfully,

he has only four cubits,

and we do not say that it is as though he never left, as we said in our Mishna when gentiles returned him against his will.

We raise a difficulty against this:

This too we already learned

in our Mishna.

For it teaches:

“If gentiles returned him, it is as though he never left,”

and one can infer from it:

Returning him

against his will

is the case in which it is as though he never left; but if gentiles took him out

—as in the Mishna, which is discussing a case in which gentiles took him out, as it teaches at the beginning—

and he returned intentionally, he has only four cubits!

Rather, say

that this is what it means:

If one left intentionally and gentiles returned him

against his will,

he has only four cubits,

since he left intentionally.

We raise a difficulty against this:

This too we already learned

in our Mishna, which teaches: One whom

“they took out”

gentiles, etc.,

and they returned him, it is as though he never left.

And one can infer from it:

It is when they took him out and returned him that it is as though he never left; but if he left intentionally,

even if gentiles returned him,

it is not so.

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

For

lest you say

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

teaches its latter clause with reference to a different case,

that is, the latter clause, which discusses gentiles returning him, does not refer back to the first clause, which discusses their taking him out. And this is how the Mishna should be understood:

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 never left.

Rav Naḥman teaches us

that the latter clause refers back to the first, and we say that it is as though he never left only when he left without his own intention and returned without his own intention.

They asked Rabba:

One whom gentiles took out—so that he has only four cubits—

and he needed to relieve himself, what is the law

concerning going beyond his four cubits to a private place?

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

that is, the prohibition “You shall not stray from the word that they declare to you, right or left,” not to violate the words of the Sages [but another negative commandment is not overridden, Berakhot 20b].

Therefore, since the laws of Shabbat limits are rabbinic, human dignity overrides them.

The scholars of Nehardea said—

they added:

If he is clever,

this person who needed to relieve himself and whom the Sages permitted to go beyond his four cubits:

let him enter a

private place that is within the

limit, and once he has entered—

he has entered [

once he has entered, he has entered], since he entered with permission, he is no worse than one whom gentiles returned, concerning whom our Mishna teaches that it is as though he never left, and he has his original limit, as it was before he left.

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 was taken beyond its limit by a Jew has only four cubits, according to the law of a person who went beyond his limit; likewise, the produce is forbidden to be eaten. [By every person; this is the accepted ruling, Mishna Berura, section 405].

b. But

produce that was taken beyond its limit

and

returned

to its place,

even if

it was taken out

intentionally [

and even if it returned intentionally], its return benefited it in two respects: a.

it did not lose its place,

and it is in its original limit as it was initially.

b. It is also permitted to be eaten.

What is the reason?

They are victims of circumstances:

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

Just as, in the case of a person, when they took him out against his will and returned him, he returned to his limit, so too the produce returns to its limit and to its permitted status for eating [based on Rashi’s wording, 42a, s.v. “if we say.” For what was explained concerning “they were taken out 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 are always forbidden

—produce that was taken beyond its limit—

until it returns to its place,

and also is

inadvertently taken out, for two favorable conditions are required to permit it: that it return to its place and that both its going out and its return be inadvertent [this appears to be the explanation according to the Gemara’s passage and Rashi below].

And this is difficult for Rav Pappa:

When it was inadvertent, it is not forbidden,

but when it was intentional, it is!

Yet you said that if it returned, there is no difference between inadvertence and intent

!

And we answer:

It is a dispute between tanna’im,

and there is a tanna who disagrees with Rabbi Neḥemya and permits it merely when it returns. It does not matter that it had been taken out intentionally, and Rav Pappa follows this tanna.

For it was taught:

Produce that was taken beyond its limit

and had not yet returned: If it was taken out

inadvertently, it may be eaten

there by anyone [whether by the person who took it out or by others who live there or who came there through an eruv, Rashi, based on the understanding of Sha’ar HaTziyun, section 405, unlike the Maharsha].

If it was taken out

intentionally, it may not be eaten

by anyone.