Eruvin 42a (מב.) — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Neḥemya says:

If they were

in their place,

that is, if they had returned,

they may be eaten!

But if they are still

not in their place, they may not be eaten

there, even if they were taken out inadvertently.

And we explain:

What does “in their place” mean?

That is, when Rabbi Neḥemya permitted them after they returned, is returning them to their place alone sufficient, with no concern whether they were taken out intentionally [and even if they returned intentionally]?

Or perhaps two favorable conditions are required: that they were taken out inadvertently and that they returned to their place [this appears to be the explanation; see Rashi’s wording here and what is explained at the end of the sugya].

If we say that “in their place”

means that they are permitted even

when taken out intentionally,

so that returning them alone is sufficient to permit them [and this is what Rabbi Neḥemya said to the first tanna: It is when they are in their place that produce that was taken out is permitted; but when they are not in their place, it is not permitted]:

That is impossible, because

it is explicitly taught—

in the beraita cited above—

Rabbi Neḥemya and Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov say: They are always forbidden until they return to their place inadvertently.

It is explicitly stated that

when inadvertent—

when there are two favorable conditions—

it is not forbidden;

when intentional—when there is only one favorable condition, namely, that they returned—

it is forbidden.

Rather, is it not the case that Rabbi Neḥemya requires two favorable conditions, and he did not permit them merely because they returned and are

in their place, but only when it was also

inadvertent [and not in accordance with Rav Pappa].

Indeed, the Talmud holds, based on the proof that will be explained below [Ritva; Rashi’s words require study], that the first tanna and Rabbi Neḥemya disagree concerning two matters:

a. The permissibility resulting from inadvertence: According to the first tanna it is effective even when the produce is outside its place, whereas according to Rabbi Neḥemya that alone is insufficient.

b. The permissibility resulting from return: Rabbi Neḥemya permits it upon return only when inadvertence is added to it, so that there are two favorable conditions. The first tanna disagrees, holding that return alone is effective to permit it without inadvertence being added.

And the beraita is incomplete,

and this is what it teaches:

Produce that was taken beyond its limit,

even though it has not yet returned, if it was taken out

inadvertently,

it

may be eaten.

When taken out intentionally, it may not be eaten.

When is this statement said—that it is forbidden to eat it—when it is still

not in its place, but

if it returned and is

in its place, this alone is also sufficient, and

even if it was taken out intentionally [and returned],

it may be eaten.

And Rabbi Neḥemya came to say:

I disagree with you in two respects: a. When they are not in their place, there is no permission for them at all, and they may not be eaten even when taken out inadvertently. b.

Even when they are in their place—

I agree with you that their return was effective to permit them, but I disagree with you in this: when it was

inadvertent—when there are two favorable conditions—

it is not forbidden;

when intentional, it is forbidden! This is unlike the first tanna, who permits it when it merely returned [explained according to the Rashash].

Since this is so, Rav Pappa’s view is subject to a tannaic dispute, and he stated it in accordance with the first tanna.

We challenge this and reject it: From where do you know that they disagree concerning two matters, and that the first tanna also disagrees concerning the permissibility resulting from return to one’s place, such that you must supply an omission in the first tanna’s words?!

For it can properly be explained

not

as you said. Rather, the first tanna does not discuss or disagree at all concerning the permission resulting from return, and when it was

intentional, even when it returned and is

in its place, everyone agrees that it is forbidden.

And here they disagree only concerning inadvertent removal when it is not in its place:

The first tanna holds: When it was inadvertent, it is permitted even when it is not in its place.

And Rabbi Neḥemya holds: Even inadvertence

is not a reason to permit it. But when it is

in its place—when the permission resulting from return is added—

it is permitted; when it is not in its place, it is not!

And we answer:

This is proven from another beraita cited above, that the first tanna also disagrees concerning return, holding that return alone is sufficient.

As it teaches

(the latter clause [the Rashash deletes this]) in that beraita:

Rabbi Neḥemya and Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov say: They are always forbidden until they return to their place inadvertently.

And we must infer:

When inadvertent, it is not; when intentional, it is.

This proves that the first tanna holds that even when intentional it is permitted!

in their place —

for the permission resulting from returning is added to it —

yes; when not in their place, no!

And we answer:

But

it is from another beraita brought above that it is proven that the first Tanna also disagrees concerning returning, and holds that returning alone is sufficient.

Since it teaches

(the latter clause

Rashash deletes it) in that beraita:

Rabbi Neḥemya and Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov say: They remain forbidden forever until they return to their place unintentionally.

And we should infer:

When unintentional, yes; when intentional, no.

By inference, the first Tanna holds that even when intentional it is permitted; learn from this !

Rav Naḥman said in the name of Shmuel:

If one was walking and does not know

how far

the Shabbat limit extends,

what should he do?

He walks two thousand average paces

[the usual pace of a person is one cubit]

and this is the Shabbat limit.

And Rav Naḥman said in the name of Shmuel:

If one spent Shabbat in an open valley

that is not surrounded by partitions, and his law is that he has two thousand cubits from the place within the valley where he spent Shabbat,

and gentiles surrounded it with a partition on Shabbat,

even though, had they surrounded it on the eve of Shabbat, we would have treated the entire valley as four cubits and he would have had two thousand cubits from it onward, now that they did not surround it on the eve of Shabbat,

he may walk two thousand cubits

only from the place where he spent Shabbat within the valley, even if the entire two thousand cubits end within the enclosure.

The partitions were nevertheless effective—even though they were made on Shabbat—in making the entire valley, which had been a karmelit, a private domain, since we hold that a partition made on Shabbat is a valid partition.

Therefore:

Anyone who is within two thousand cubits of his place of residence may carry there in the usual manner [Rashi].

And

even

carry throughout it

even beyond two thousand cubits

by throwing

an object from within the two thousand cubits to beyond the two thousand cubits, for the entire valley is a private domain; it is only that he himself may not go beyond two thousand cubits from his place of residence.

And Rav Huna said:

We treat the valley as though there were no partition there [Rashi]. Therefore:

He may walk two thousand cubits

from his place of residence,

and carry

within the two thousand cubits

four

[the version of Rashi and the Ritva]

cubits

[that is, less than four cubits], only, which is the amount permitted for carrying in any valley that is a karmelit, as the Gemara proceeds to explain the reason.

And we challenge Rav Huna:

Then let him carry throughout it by throwing,

that is, let him carry beyond two thousand cubits by throwing—as Shmuel said—for it has partitions, and we hold that a partition made on Shabbat is a valid partition?!

The Gemara explains:

It is a decree lest he be drawn

himself

after his object

to outside the limit.

The difficulty against Rav Huna nevertheless remains:

Within the two thousand cubits—

where he himself is also permitted to walk—

at least let him carry in the usual manner

[in his usual manner]?!

[And all the more so, by throwing; Rashi.]

The Gemara explains: Since, according to Rav Huna, it is forbidden to carry beyond the two thousand cubits, it is consequently forbidden to carry even within the two thousand cubits,

because it is like a partition

separating two domains, one of which is permitted and the other forbidden,

that has been breached entirely toward the place to which it is forbidden,

where it is forbidden to carry four cubits even in the permitted domain, despite the fact that it is completely enclosed by three other partitions.

Ḥiyya bar Rav said:

He may walk two thousand cubits and carry

within those

two thousand cubits

in the usual manner, but beyond two thousand cubits it is forbidden even by throwing.

The Gemara is puzzled by this:

In accordance with whom

does Ḥiyya bar Rav hold?

Can it be that he holds

not in accordance with Rav Naḥman,

who permits carrying throughout the entire valley by throwing,

and not in accordance with Rav Huna,

who prohibits carrying throughout it except within four cubits?!

But this is impossible: In either case, if he decrees lest one be drawn after his object even within the two thousand cubits, carrying there should be prohibited because it is a partition breached entirely toward the place to which it is forbidden. And if he does not decree lest one be drawn after his object, he should carry beyond two thousand cubits by throwing.

The Gemara answers:

Say

that what Ḥiyya bar Rav said—“he carries two thousand cubits”—means as follows:

He carries

within the two thousand cubits

four

[that is, less than four] cubits only, and beyond two thousand cubits not at all [the Ritva. See what the Gaon Yaakov adds].

The Gemara is puzzled:

If so, this is the view of Rav Huna?!

The Gemara answers: Say instead:

And Ḥiyya bar Rav said the same!

Rav Naḥman said to Rav Huna: Do not dispute Shmuel

whom I cited as saying that one may carry throughout the entire valley by throwing,

for

there is

a beraita in accordance with his view.

As it was taught: