Eruvin 42b (מב:) — the Talmud in English

One who places his eruv and comes to walk two thousand cubits from the location of his eruv, and

was measuring as he proceeded, and his measure ended in the middle of a city

in which he had not observed Shabbat [for we do not consider the entire city as four cubits, since he had not observed Shabbat there; rather, the place where his measure ended is where his Shabbat limit ends],

he is permitted to carry throughout the entire city

[provided that an eruv of courtyards had been established in it, or on a Festival, when an eruv is not required],

provided that he does not cross the limit on foot.

And this beraita provides proof in accordance with Shmuel, for

with regard to what

does the beraita say that he may

carry

throughout the entire city [where he himself cannot come, since it is outside his Shabbat limit]?! Is it

not by throwing

from within two thousand cubits to beyond two thousand cubits?! It is therefore taught in a beraita in accordance with Shmuel. [

Version of the Bach:

And Rav Huna could say to you: No

it is not by throwing, but

by dragging;

and Rashi wrote that this version should not be read; see the note] .

Rav Huna said: If he was measuring as he proceeded, and his measure ended in the middle of a courtyard,

since he had not observed Shabbat there,

he has only half the courtyard

in which to walk, and he is prohibited from going out into its other half.

We raise an objection to this:

Is it obvious

that he may not go farther, since his two thousand cubits have ended?!

And we answer:

Say instead: He has half the courtyard

in which to walk; that is, the novelty is that he has the half of the courtyard.

We raise an objection to this:

Is this too obvious?!

And we answer:

It might have entered your mind to say that we should be concerned lest he come to carry

[to walk, according to Tosafot’s understanding of Rashi]

throughout

the courtyard;

it teaches us

that he is permitted to walk in half the courtyard.

And here the Gemara returns to the dispute between the amoraim mentioned above on the first side, whether it is prohibited to throw from within two thousand cubits to beyond two thousand cubits, because of the concern that one might follow after the object:

Rav Naḥman said,

who did not decree above, in the open field [on the first side], that one might follow after the object, and permits carrying beyond two thousand cubits by throwing:

Huna agrees with me—

who prohibits throwing from within two thousand cubits to beyond two thousand cubits, lest one follow after the object—that if

he was measuring as he proceeded, and his measure ended at the edge of a roof,

that is, the wall of the house was breached and only the roof remained, and his two thousand cubits ended at the beginning of the house, so that although he is prohibited from entering the house,

he is permitted

to

carry throughout the entire house—

which is outside his limit—by throwing from the courtyard in front of the house into it, and we do not decree that he might follow after the object.

What is the reason?

Since the roof of the house

“strikes down”.

That is, it appears as though it descends and closes off the area, and there is a distinguishing sign, so he will not continue into the house. For he directs his eyes toward the roof, and it serves as a sign for him that his measure ended there.

Rav Huna, son of Rav Natan, said:

The matter over which Rav Naḥman, citing Shmuel, and Rav Huna disagree—whether we decree that one might follow after the object—is

a dispute between tannaim

who disagree in our Mishna.

As we learned:

Gentiles brought him

and

placed him in another city, and placed him in a pen or an enclosure.

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

even though he had not observed Shabbat there; since he has only four cubits, they were lenient to consider the entire area as only four cubits.

And Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Akiva say: He has only four cubits

within it.

Is it not

with regard to this that they disagree: Everyone agrees that, according to strict law, since he was placed in an area enclosed by partitions, even though he had not observed Shabbat there, we should regard the entire area as four cubits; and the reason for the restrictive opinion is a decree. And this is the point of their disagreement:

Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, who said that he may walk through all of it,

their reasoning is

that they did not decree against walking in a pen or enclosure

that has partitions

on account of

walking in an open field

that has no partitions, where he has only four cubits.

And

if so,

just as regarding walking

in a pen or enclosure

on account of walking

in an open field

they did not decree, regarding carrying

beyond two thousand cubits by throwing,

on account of walking

beyond two thousand cubits as well,

they did not decree [Rashi] .

And this is the view of Rav Naḥman, who did not decree.

And Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Akiva, who say: He has only four cubits,

is it not that their reasoning is

that they decree against walking in a pen or enclosure on account of walking in an open field?

And

if so,

just as they decree against one form of walking on account of another form of walking, they likewise decree against carrying on account of walking,

and this is the view of Rav Huna.

And we reject this:

From where

do we know that this is a dispute between tannaim?!

Perhaps

according to Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, one must distinguish between the decrees and say:

When Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya did not decree against walking in an enclosure or pen on account of walking in an open field, that applies only there, since they are two different places

that are not similar to one another, for a pen or enclosure is surrounded by partitions, whereas an open field is not surrounded [Rashi].

But carrying

beyond two thousand cubits

on account of walking

beyond two thousand cubits

which is one and the same place, here too they would decree that he might follow after his object.

And Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Akiva as well

can be explained as not providing a basis for our matter, because

from where

do we know that their reason is

because they issued a decree?!

Perhaps

their reason is

because

they disagree with the fundamental position of Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, who permit walking through all of it even though he had not observed Shabbat there, and

they hold,

Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Akiva, that:

When we say

“the entire house is considered as four cubits,” that applies only where he observed Shabbat within the airspace enclosed by the partitions before nightfall; but where he did not observe Shabbat within the airspace enclosed by the partitions before nightfall, we do not

consider it as four cubits.

Rav said:

The halakha is in accordance with Rabban Gamliel

in what he said in our Mishna

with regard to a pen, an enclosure, and a ship,

that he may walk through all of it .

And Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with Rabban Gamliel with regard to a ship,

that he may walk through all of it,

but with regard to a pen or enclosure, no,

we do not establish the halakha in accordance with him, and it is not permitted to walk in them beyond his four cubits.

And we explain:

Everyone—

whether according to Rav or according to Shmuel—

at least agrees that the halakha is in accordance with Rabban Gamliel with regard to a ship,

even according to Shmuel, who did not rule in accordance with him with regard to a pen or enclosure.

And

for what reason

do we distinguish between a pen or enclosure and a ship, ruling in accordance with Rabban Gamliel with regard to a pen or enclosure and in accordance with Rabbi Akiva with regard to a ship?!

He said,

the one explaining this is

Rabba:

A ship is different,

since he observed Shabbat within the airspace enclosed by the partitions

of the ship

before nightfall.

Therefore, although we do not accept Rabban Gamliel’s view with regard to a pen or enclosure, because we do not accept the principle that an area enclosed by partitions in which he had not observed Shabbat is considered as four cubits, here, with regard to a ship in which he observed Shabbat before nightfall, we properly establish the halakha in accordance with Rabban Gamliel, that it is considered as four cubits .

Rabbi Zeira said,

explaining:

The fact that a ship is preferable to a pen or enclosure is not because of the ship’s surrounding partitions. On the contrary, even according to Rabban Gamliel, the ship’s partitions are not effective in making the entire ship equivalent to four cubits [and the Gemara explains his reasoning shortly]. Therefore, if the ship is stationary, everyone agrees that it is prohibited to walk in it.

Rather, the dispute between the tannaim in the Mishna is when the ship is moving: according to Rabban Gamliel, he may walk through all of it even without relying on the partitions, and it is in this respect that we establish the halakha in accordance with him.

And Rabban Gamliel’s reasoning is:

Since the ship takes him from the beginning of four cubits

of one set

and places him at the end of four

other cubits. “That is, when he lifts his foot, before he puts it down, the ship takes him out of his four cubits [which he had beneath the ship at sea] and brings him into another four cubits against his will. He is therefore like one whom gentiles took beyond his four cubits and placed within another four cubits: they give him four cubits, and so on forever” [the wording of Rashi, which they adopted as fundamental].

And Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Akiva disagree with Rabban Gamliel because they hold that a ship is stationary, and it is the water that carries it [see Bava Metzia 9b]. That is, when the ship is moving, it does not leave one set of four cubits in the sea for another set of four cubits; rather, it always remains in those same four cubits, while the water beneath it moves and carries it. Consequently, when a person walks within it more than four cubits, he leaves his own four cubits and enters another set of four cubits that are not his [according to the Ritva].

And we explain:

What is the practical difference between them

Rabba and Rabbi Zeira?

There is a practical difference between them:

a.

When the walls of the ship were breached

and it has no partitions.

According to Rabba, who holds that walking in it is permitted because of the ship’s partitions, now that there are no partitions, it is prohibited.

But according to Rabbi Zeira, who holds that permission is not because of the ship’s partitions but because the ship is moving, here too, since it is moving, it is permitted .

b.

Alternatively,

there is another practical difference between Rabba’s reason and Rabbi Zeira’s reason:

when one jumps from the ship

in which he had observed Shabbat

to another ship

whether he may walk in the second ship when it is moving [Ritva].

According to Rabba, it is prohibited, since he did not observe Shabbat within the partitions of this ship.

But according to Rabbi Zeira, it is permitted, since what difference is there between here and there?

And we explain:

And Rabbi Zeira, for what reason did he not say

and explain

in accordance with Rabba?

He could say to you,

Rabbi Zeira:

The partitions

of the ship do not have the status of partitions that would make the entire ship equivalent to four cubits,