Eruvin 43a — the Talmud in English

Since

to divert water

from the ship

they are made.

And thus we interpret:

But according to Rabbah, for what reason did he not state in accordance with Rabbi Zeira?

He could say

Rashi: Rabbah:

In

a ship

that is moving, everyone—

Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Akiva, who disagree in our Mishna—

do not disagree,

for he traverses all of it, and for the reason of Rabbi Zeira.

And necessarily,

when they disagree

in our Mishna,

it is when it stood,

for the reason of Rabbi Zeira does not apply, since according to Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah it is permitted, because they observed Shabbat within the partitions of the ship from before dayfall; and according to Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Akiva it is forbidden.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said:

Our Mishna also indicates

in accordance with Rabbah,

that when it is moving the Tannaitic authorities

of our Mishna do not disagree, and according to everyone it is permitted.

From where?

As it teaches

in our Mishna:

“An incident occurred: they came from Phlandarsin, and their ship sailed out into the sea; Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah traversed all of it, while Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Akiva did not move beyond four cubits, because they wished to be stringent upon themselves.”

Granted, if you say that when it is moving they do not disagree,

Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Akiva, and as a matter of law they agree that it is permitted,

this is what it teaches: “They wished

to be stringent upon themselves”—for it implies that according to the essential law it is permitted for everyone, but they wished to be stringent upon themselves. Since the incident occurred while it was moving, although it is permitted according to the essential law, they were stringent upon themselves because they were concerned

perhaps it stood

during their travel without their noticing it [Maharsha, and so it is in the Ritba; and not like the Maharshal], and it turns out that they went beyond their four cubits.

But if you say

that when it is moving

they disagree,

Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Akiva, and they forbid it, what is

this

that it teaches

“they wished to be stringent,”

when it is

a prohibition

and not a stringency?!

Rav Ashi said:

Our Mishna also indicates

in accordance with Rabbah, that they disagree when it stood, and not in accordance with Rabbi Zeira, according to whom when it stood everyone agrees that he does not traverse all of it:

For it teaches

in our Mishna

a ship analogous to an enclosure and a courtyard: just as an enclosure and a courtyard are fixed

and do not move,

so too a ship is fixed

and does not move.

He said

in astonishment

to Rav Ashi, Rav Aḥa son of Rava,

concerning what Rav and Shmuel said above,

“The halakha is in accordance with Rabban Gamliel concerning a ship”:

“The halakha”

implies that they disagree

concerning a ship—Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Eliezer?! From where did they derive this? Perhaps concerning a ship they did not disagree at all, for the plain meaning of the Mishna is that they disagreed only by wishing to be stringent upon themselves [according to the Ritba and the implication of Rashi. And the entire discussion above, which assumed that they disagreed in law and not in stringency, relies on Rav Ashi’s answer].

And Rav Ashi answered him:

Yes,

as you inferred from the words of Rav and Shmuel, they disagreed in law,

and it was taught

[agreeably] that they disagreed:

For it was taught:

Ḥananya

(the son of Rabbi Yehoshua’s brother

[the Bach deleted this, and so it appears in the Ritba. Indeed, Rabbi Yehoshua was his paternal uncle, as explained by Rashi and the Ritba]

says:

All that day

that they were in the ship,

they sat and discussed the matter of halakha.

The previous evening

[toward evening]

my father’s brother decided

namely, Rabbi Yehoshua:

“The halakha is in accordance with Rabban Gamliel concerning a ship, and the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Akiva concerning an enclosure and a courtyard.”

And since he said “the halakha” in accordance with Rabban Gamliel concerning a ship, it is proven that Rabbi Akiva disagreed with him, and that they disagreed not merely as a stringency.

The conclusion that emerges from the discussion in explaining the Mishna

according to the approaches explained here:

1.

Rabbah’s position:

An enclosure and a courtyard:

According to Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah, it is like four cubits, even though he did not observe Shabbat in them from before dayfall; since in any event he has only four cubits, they were lenient. And according to Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Akiva: since he did not observe Shabbat in them from before dayfall, they are not like four cubits.

A ship

standing: according to Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah, it is like four cubits. But according to Rabbi Akiva it is not like four cubits, even though they observed Shabbat in it from before dayfall. [

And concerning the reason for the matter, the early authorities disagreed:

According to Tosafot: because the partitions are made to divert water.

According to the Rashba and the Ritba: because he entered the ship intending to leave beyond his domain, and “once it left his domain, the original law is annulled, and it is as though he did not observe Shabbat there.” See further in the Rashba another explanation. According to the Rashba and the Ritba, Rabban Gamliel’s reason is that he follows his own position, that partitions in which he observed Shabbat are not required. According to Tosafot, Rabban Gamliel disagrees with the reasoning that partitions made to divert water are [not valid partitions], and this is not specifically according to his own position, for he observed Shabbat within these partitions, and according to everyone it is like four cubits. From Rashi in the Mishna it clearly appears that Rabban Gamliel follows his own position, and necessarily this is not like Tosafot].

A moving ship:

According to everyone, according to the essential law he traverses all of it; but Rabbi Akiva is stringent because of the doubt that perhaps it stood, in which case according to his position it is forbidden, while Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah, who permit it even when it stood, were not stringent.

The ruling:

Concerning an enclosure and a courtyard: he does not traverse all of it.

Concerning a standing ship: he traverses all of it because he observed Shabbat in it from before dayfall [and not like Rabban Gamliel, who permitted it even if he did not observe Shabbat in it from before dayfall, and not like Rabbi Akiva, who forbade it even if he did observe Shabbat in it. And this was Rabbi Yehoshua’s position after he decided the matter, and so Rav and Shmuel ruled].

Concerning a moving ship: according to what we rule, there is no place for stringency, for if it stood it would be permitted. [And it must be said that Rabbi Yehoshua was stringent before he decided that when it stood it is permitted, for he decided the matter only toward evening. And so the Chazon Ish wrote, section 109, subsection 13, according to Rabbi Zeira].

2.

Rabbi Zeira’s position:

An enclosure and a courtyard:

the dispute of the Tannaitic authorities, and like Rabbah’s position.

A standing ship:

according to everyone, he has only four cubits, since its partitions are made to divert water.

A moving ship:

according to Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah, he traverses all of it because it is moving. But according to Rabbi Akiva he does not traverse all of it, because he does not accept, concerning a moving ship, the reasoning “since the ship carries him from the end of four [cubits] and so on”; and if the reason is the partitions, they are made to divert water.

The ruling:

Concerning an enclosure and a courtyard: he does not traverse all of it.

Concerning a standing ship: he does not traverse all of it.

Concerning a moving ship, he traverses all of it. [And this is Rabbi Yehoshua’s position, except that initially he was uncertain].

Rav Ḥanania inquired:

whether

there is

a prohibition of

domains

above ten handbreadths,

or is there no

prohibition of

domains

above ten handbreadths, as the Gemara proceeds to explain.

And we explain his inquiry: If there were

a pillar ten handbreadths high

handbreadths

and four handbreadths wide,

and the end of the domain was in its middle,

you need not inquire

whether it is permitted to climb to its top and walk upon it beyond the domain, because it is above ten handbreadths. And because

the

pillar

is solid ground, meaning: since it is convenient for walking, “it is proper walking,” and it is forbidden to walk beyond the domain [Rashi].

But you do need to inquire:

1.

Concerning a pillar ten handbreadths high

handbreadths

but not four handbreadths wide,

with the end of the domain in its middle, since “its use is not convenient” [Rashi, meaning that it is not convenient for walking], we inquire whether it is permitted to climb to its top and go out upon it [or from pillar to pillar, Ritba] beyond the domain.

2.

Alternatively,

you need to inquire wherever

he goes

above ten

by leaping

through the use of a Divine Name.

It is concerning these two that we inquire whether this is considered walking or not [Rashi. Later authorities explained Rashi’s words: specifically, concerning leaving beyond the domain above ten handbreadths, since it is not a “place of walking,” is this what we inquire about. But below ten handbreadths, even if he did not leave his domain by way of walking, since within ten it is adjacent to the ground, which is a place of walking, it is as though he left his domain on the ground, for up to ten it is one domain, while above ten it is another domain].

(Another version: concerning a ship

—which ordinarily moves above ten handbreadths, and does not rest, and is comparable to leaping through the air—

what? Rashi did not have this version, as the Gaon Yaakov wrote.)

is the halakha? Rashi did not have this version, as the Gaon Yaakov wrote.)

Rav Hoshaya said: Come and hear

from our Mishna:

“An incident occurred: they came from Phlandarsin, and their ship sailed out into the sea,”

Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah traversed all of it, while Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Akiva did not move beyond four cubits, because they wished to be stringent upon themselves.

Granted, if you say that there is a domain

above ten handbreadths,

that is why they wished

to be stringent.

But if you say that there is no domain

above ten handbreadths,

why did they wish

to be stringent? A ship ordinarily moves above ten handbreadths and does not rest, and is comparable to leaping through the air [Rashi], so let them walk in it as much as they wish?!

And we reject this:

As

Rava says and answers

below, concerning the incident at the end of our Mishna,

which deals with

the ship moving

in

in shallow water

[a place at the edge of the river that is not ten handbreadths deep, Ritba],

here too

it can be answered that this incident

was in a ship moving in shallow water,

for since it was groping along below ten handbreadths, there is a prohibition of domains in it.

Come and hear

from the conclusion of our Mishna:

“Once they did not enter the harbor until it became dark,”

they said to Rabban Gamliel, “What about us—may we descend?” He said to them: “You are permitted, for I had already been looking, and we were within the domain before it became dark.”

Granted, if you say that there is a domain

above ten handbreadths, and it follows that at the onset of Shabbat, when they were in the ship, they acquired their place of residence where they were, and his permission depended upon their having been within the domain before dark,

it is well.

But if you say that there is no domain

above ten handbreadths, it follows that as long as they are in the ship, which is above ten handbreadths, they do not acquire a place of residence, and only when they come within ten do they acquire a place of residence [even in the middle of Shabbat]. If so, why did Rabban Gamliel need to say, “We were within the domain

; if we were not within the domain, what would it be

? After all, now, when they descend, they will acquire a place of residence where they are, and they are like the inhabitants of the city [according to the Ritba]?!

He said

in rejection,

Rava: The ship was moving

at the onset of Shabbat

in shallow water,

and they properly were uncertain whether they acquired a place of residence beyond the domain.

Come and hear:

from

these seven teachings

[seven traditions, namely, seven conditions rendering an animal non-kosher, mentioned in Chullin 42; Meiri]

that were stated in the morning on Shabbat

[which were stated on Shabbat morning]

before Rav Ḥisda in Sura,

and

toward evening on Shabbat

[and toward evening of that same Shabbat] they were stated by the same speaker [who traveled by leaping, Rav Ḥisda],

before

(Rava

[Rabbah]]

in Pumbedita,

which was outside the domain of Sura.

Yet

who

was it who

stated them,

and thereby went beyond the domain?

Was it not Elijah

the prophet—who is obligated to observe Shabbat—

who stated them

?! It follows that there is no domain above ten handbreadths,

and therefore Elijah was permitted to leave beyond the domain of Sura by leaping above ten handbreadths. [Explained according to the Meiri]

And we reject this:

No,

it was not Elijah, who is obligated to observe Shabbat, who stated them;

perhaps Yosef the demon,

who is not obligated to observe Shabbat,

stated them.

Come and hear

to resolve the inquiry whether there is a domain above ten handbreadths:

One who says:

“I shall be a nazirite on the day that

the Messiah

son of David comes; he is permitted to drink wine on Shabbatot and festivals,”

because he need not be concerned that that day will come, as the Gemara proceeds to explain.