Eruvin 42a — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Neḥemya says:

If they were

in their place,

that is, they returned,

they may be eaten!

But if they are still

not in their place, they may not be eaten

there, even if they left unintentionally.

And we explain:

What does “in their place” mean?

That is: when Rabbi Neḥemya permitted them once they returned, is returning to their place alone sufficient, and it does not matter to us whether they left intentionally [and even if they returned intentionally]?

Or perhaps we require two favorable factors: that they left unintentionally and returned to their place [so it appears necessary to explain; see Rashi’s wording here and what was explained at the end of the sugya].

If you say “in their place”

means that they are permitted even

when intentional,

because returning 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 there is permission for produce that left, but when they are not in their place, there is no permission for them].

This is not possible, because:

But it is explicitly taught —

in the beraita brought above —

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

It is explicit that

when unintentional —

when there are two favorable factors —

yes; when intentional

when there is only one favorable factor, that they returned,

no.

Rather, is it not that Rabbi Neḥemya requires two favorable factors, and he did not permit them when they returned and were

на своем месте,

in their place

unless it was also

unintentional, [

and not like Rav Pappa].

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

A. Concerning the permission when the leaving was unintentional: according to the first Tanna it is effective even when they are outside their place, whereas according to Rabbi Neḥemya this alone is insufficient.

B. Concerning the permission resulting from returning: Rabbi Neḥemya permits through returning only when unintentional is added to it, so that there are two favorable factors. The first Tanna disagrees, holding that returning alone is effective to permit them without unintentional being added to it.

And the beraita is incomplete,

the

and this is what it teaches:

Produce that left beyond its boundary,

even though it has not yet returned, if it left

unintentionally,

it

may be eaten.

When intentional, it may not be eaten.

When does this statement apply —

that they are forbidden for eating? When they are still

not in their place, but

if they returned and are

in their place,

this alone is also sufficient, and

even if they left intentionally

[and returned],

they may be eaten.

And Rabbi Neḥemya came to say:

I disagree with you on two matters: first, where they are not in their place, there is no permission in them at all, and even when unintentional, they may not be eaten.

B.

Even when they are in their place as well —

although I agree with you that their return was effective to permit them, I disagree with you on this matter, and I hold that when

unintentional —

when there are two favorable factors —

yes; when intentional, no!

And this is not like the first Tanna, who permits through returning alone [explained according to Rashash].

And since this is so, it follows that Rav Pappa’s view is a dispute among Tannaim, and he stated it according to the first Tanna.

And we challenge this and reject it: From where do you know that they disagree on two matters, and that the first Tanna also disagrees concerning the permission resulting from returning while they are in their place, so that you must make the words of the first Tanna incomplete?!

For it is quite possible to explain

not

as you said, but that the first Tanna does not speak or disagree at all concerning the permission resulting from returning; and where it was

intentional, even when they returned and are

in their place, everyone agrees that it is forbidden.

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

And here they disagree only concerning unintentional while not in their place:

(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.

The first Tanna holds: When unintentional, it is permitted while not in its place.

And Rabbi Neḥemya holds: Even unintentional

is not a reason for permitting. But when they are

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 manner of a person's walking, one cubit]

and this is the Shabbat limit.

And Rav Naḥman said in the name of Shmuel:

With regard to one who spent Shabbat in a valley

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

and gentiles surrounded it with a partition on Shabbat,

even though if they had surrounded it on the eve of Shabbat, we would have judged 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 walks two thousand cubits

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

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

Therefore:

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

And

even

he may carry throughout it

even beyond two thousand cubits

by throwing

what he throws from within the two thousand to beyond the two thousand, for the entire valley is a private domain; only he himself cannot go beyond two thousand cubits from the place of his residence.

And Rav Huna said:

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

He walks two thousand cubits

from the place of his residence,

and carries

within the two thousand cubits

four

[the reading of Rashi and the Ritba]

cubits

[that is, less than four cubits] only, which are permitted for carrying in any valley that is a karmelit, as he explains the reason and proceeds.

And we object to Rav Huna:

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 partition?!

And we explain:

A decree lest he be drawn

he himself

after his object

to beyond the limit.

But it still is difficult for Rav Huna:

Within the two thousand—

where he himself is also permitted to walk—

at least, let him carry in his usual manner

[in his usual manner]?!

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

And we explain: Since it is forbidden—in Rav Huna's view—to carry beyond the two thousand cubits, it is automatically forbidden to carry even within the two thousand cubits,

because it is like a partition

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

that has been breached in its entirety toward the place forbidden to it,

where it is forbidden to carry four cubits even in the permitted domain, even though it is surrounded by three other complete partitions.

Ḥiyya bar Rav said:

He walks two thousand cubits, and carries

within those

two thousand cubits

in his usual manner, and beyond two thousand cubits it is forbidden even by throwing.

And we wonder about this:

According to whom

does Ḥiyya bar Rav hold?

Could we say that he holds

not according to Rav Naḥman,

who permits carrying throughout it by throwing,

and not according to Rav Huna,

who forbids carrying throughout it except within four cubits?!

But this is impossible; for in either case, if he decrees lest he be drawn after his object, even within the two thousand it should be forbidden because of a partition breached in its entirety toward the place forbidden to it. And if he does not decree lest he be drawn after his object, he should carry beyond two thousand cubits by throwing.

And we answer:

Say

that what Ḥiyya bar Rav said, “He carries two thousand cubits,” this is what he meant:

He carries

within the two thousand cubits

four

[that is, less than four] cubits only, and beyond the two thousand cubits, not at all [Ritba. And see what the Gaon Yaakov added].

And we wonder:

If so, this is Rav Huna's view?!

And we answer: Say:

And Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Rav said likewise!

Rav Naḥman said to Rav Huna: Do not dispute Shmuel

whom I cited as saying that he may carry throughout it by throwing,

for

indeed

a beraita was taught in accordance with his view.

For it was taught: