Eruvin 42b — the Talmud in English

One who placed his eruv and came to walk two thousand cubits from the place of his eruv, and

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

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

he is permitted to carry throughout the entire city

[for eruvei hatzerot had been made in it, or on a Festival, when an eruv is not required],

provided that he does not cross the tehum with his feet.

And from this beraita it is proven in accordance with Shmuel: for

with what

does the beraita say that he

may carry

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

not by throwing

from within two thousand cubits to beyond two thousand cubits?! It is thus taught in a beraita in accordance with his view of Shmuel.

[The version of the Bach:

And Rav Huna could say to you: No

by throwing, but

by pulling;

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

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

since he had not spent Shabbat in it,

he has only half the courtyard

in which to walk, and he is forbidden to leave for its other half.

And we raise an objection to this:

It is obvious,

for his two thousand cubits have ended?!

And we answer:

Say: He has half the courtyard

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

And we raise an objection to this:

This too is obvious?!

And we answer:

It might have been said: Let us be concerned lest he come to carry

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

through the entire

courtyard;

it teaches us

that he is permitted to walk in half the courtyard.

And here the Gemara returns to the dispute of the amoraim mentioned above on the first side, whether it is forbidden to throw from within two thousand cubits to beyond two thousand cubits, because of the concern lest he follow after it:

Rav Naḥman said,

who did not decree above [on the first side] in an open field lest he follow after it, and permits carrying beyond two thousand cubits by throwing:

Huna agrees with me—

who forbids throwing from within two thousand cubits to beyond two thousand cubits, lest he follow after it—that if

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

that is, the wall of the house had been breached and only the roof remained, and his two thousand cubits ended at the beginning of the house, so that although he is forbidden to enter the house,

it is permitted

for him

to carry throughout the entire house—

which is outside the tehum—by throwing from the courtyard in front of the house into it, and we do not decree lest he follow after it.

What is the reason?

Since the roof of the house

“strikes down”.

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

Rav Huna, son of Rav Natan, said:

This matter in which Rav Naḥman in the name of Shmuel and Rav Huna dispute whether we decree lest he follow after it

is the dispute of tannaim

who dispute in our Mishna.

For we learned:

Non-Jews led him

to another city

and placed him in an enclosure or a courtyard.

Rabban Gamaliel and Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah say: He may walk through all of it,

even though he had not spent Shabbat in it; since he has only four cubits, they were lenient to consider the whole of it as only four cubits.

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

within it.

Is it not so

that they dispute in this matter: Everyone agrees that, as a matter of basic law, since they placed him in a place enclosed by partitions, even though he had not spent Shabbat within them, we should consider the entire place as four cubits; and the reason for the prohibiting opinion is a decree, and they dispute in this matter:

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

their reason is

that they do not decree against walking in an enclosure or a courtyard

which have partitions

on account of

walking in an open field

which has no partitions, and in which he has only four cubits.

And

if so,

since with regard to walking

in an enclosure or a courtyard

on account of walking

in an open field

they do not decree, with regard to carrying

beyond two thousand cubits by throwing

on account of walking

beyond two thousand cubits as well

they do not decree, [Rashi] .

And this is the position of Rav Naḥman, who does not decree.

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

is it not that their reason is

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

And

if so,

since they decree walking on account of walking, they likewise decree carrying on account of walking,

and this is the position of Rav Huna.

And we reject this:

From where

is it that this is the dispute of tannaim?!

Perhaps

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

When Rabban Gamaliel and Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah did not decree against walking in a courtyard or enclosure on account of walking in an open field, that applies specifically there, since they are two places

which are unlike one another, for an enclosure and a courtyard are 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 place, they likewise decree lest he follow after his object.

And Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Akiva as well

it may be said that nothing can be learned from their words concerning our matter, because:

From where do we know that

their reason

is because they decree?!

Perhaps

their reason

is because

they dispute the essential position of Rabban Gamaliel and Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah, who permit walking throughout the entire area even though he had not spent Shabbat in it, and

they hold,

Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Akiva:

When we say

“the entire house is considered like four cubits,” that applies specifically where he spent Shabbat within the airspace of the partitions from before Shabbat; but where he did not spend Shabbat within the airspace of the partitions from before Shabbat, we do not

consider it as four cubits.

Rav said:

The halakha is in accordance with Rabban Gamaliel

in what he said in our Mishna

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

that he may walk through all of it .

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

that he may walk through all of it,

but with regard to an enclosure or a courtyard, no,

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

And we explain:

According to everyone—

whether according to Rav or according to Shmuel—

at any rate, the halakha is in accordance with Rabban Gamaliel with regard to a ship,

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

But

what is the reason

that we distinguish for ourselves between an enclosure or a courtyard and a ship, so that with regard to an enclosure or a courtyard we establish the law in accordance with Rabban Gamaliel, while with regard to a ship we establish the law in accordance with Rabbi Akiva?!

He said,

the one explaining,

Rabba:

A ship is different,

since he spent Shabbat within the airspace of the partitions

of the ship

from before Shabbat.

Therefore, although we do not hold in accordance with Rabban Gamaliel with regard to an enclosure or a courtyard, because we do not hold that the enclosure of partitions in which he did not spend Shabbat is considered as four cubits, here, with regard to a ship in which he spent Shabbat from before Shabbat, we properly establish the law in accordance with Rabban Gamaliel, that it is considered as four cubits .

Rabbi Zeira said,

explaining:

The fact that a ship is preferable to an enclosure or a courtyard is not because of the enclosure of the ship’s partitions. On the contrary, even according to Rabban Gamaliel, the partitions of a ship are not effective in making the entire ship like four cubits [and he explains his reason in the Gemara shortly]; therefore, if the ship is stationary, according to everyone it is forbidden to walk in it.

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

And the reason of Rabban Gamaliel is:

since the ship takes him from the beginning of four

cubits

and places him at the end of four

other cubits. That is, when he lifts his foot, before he places it down, the ship removes him from his four cubits [which he had in the sea beneath the ship] and brings him into another four cubits against his will, and he is like one whom non-Jews took outside his four cubits and placed him within other four cubits: they give him four cubits, and so continually” [the wording of Rashi, which they wrote as the primary explanation].

And Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Akiva dispute Rabban Gamaliel because they hold: The ship is resting, and it is the water that carries it [see Bava Metzia, page 9]; that is, when the ship is moving, it does not leave four cubits in the sea for other four cubits; rather, it always remains in those four cubits, and the water beneath it moves and carries it. It follows that when a person walks in it more than four cubits, he leaves his four cubits and enters other 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:

1.

Where the walls of the ship were breached

and it has no partitions.

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

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

2.

Alternatively,

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

if he jumps from a ship

in which he spent Shabbat

to another ship

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

According to Rabba, it is forbidden, for he did not spend Shabbat within the partitions of this ship.

But according to Rabbi Zeira, it is permitted, for what difference is there to me here and what difference is there to me there?

And we explain:

And Rabbi Zeira, why did he not say

and explain

like Rabba?

He could say to you,

Rabbi Zeira:

The partitions

of the ship do not have the status of partitions upon them, to make the entire ship like four cubits,