Eruvin 43a (מג.) — the Talmud in English

Since

they are made to divert water

from within the ship

—

And we explain:

And as for Rabba, what is the reason that he did not state his opinion in accordance with Rabbi Zeira?

He could say to you [Rashi:

Rabba]:

With regard to a

ship,

everyone agrees

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

do not disagree

that one may traverse its entire area, and this is for Rabbi Zeira’s reason.

And inevitably,

when they disagree

in our Mishna,

it is when the ship is stationary,

a case in which Rabbi Zeira’s reason does not apply. According to Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, it is permitted, because they had spent Shabbat within the ship’s partitions from before nightfall. But according to Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Akiva, it is prohibited.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said:

Our Mishna also precisely indicates

the position of Rabba,

that the tanna’im do not disagree with regard to a moving ship

and everyone permits it.

From where?

As it teaches

in our Mishna:

There was an incident in which they came from Phalandersin, and their ship sailed out to sea. Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya traversed its entire area, while Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Akiva did not move beyond four cubits, “as they wished to be stringent upon themselves.”

Granted, if you say that they do not disagree with regard to a moving ship,

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

this is why it teaches: “They wished

to be stringent upon themselves”—which indicates that according to the fundamental law it is permitted for everyone, but they wished to be stringent upon themselves. Since the incident involved a moving ship, although it was permitted according to the fundamental law, they imposed this stringency upon themselves because they were concerned

perhaps it had stopped

during their movement without their knowledge [Maharsha; and this is also the understanding of the Ritva, unlike the Maharshal], and it would follow that they had gone beyond their four-cubit limits.

But if you say

that with regard to a moving ship

they do disagree,

Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Akiva, and they prohibit 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 precisely indicates

the position of Rabba, that they disagree when the ship is stationary, and not that of Rabbi Zeira, according to whom everyone agrees that when it is stationary one may not traverse its entire area:

As it teaches

in our Mishna

that a ship is analogous to a pen and an enclosure: Just as a pen and an enclosure are stationary

and do not move,

so too, a ship is stationary

and does not move.

He raised

a difficulty

to Rav Ashi, Rav Aḥa son of Rava,

with regard to what Rav and Shmuel said earlier,

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

“The halakha”

indicates that they disagree

with regard to a ship—Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Eliezer?! From where did they know this? Perhaps they did not disagree at all with regard to a ship, since the simple meaning of the Mishna indicates that they disagreed only in that they wished to be stringent upon themselves [based on the Ritva and the implication of Rashi. The entire preceding discussion, which understood them to have disagreed concerning the law and not merely concerning a stringency, relies on Rav Ashi’s resolution].

And Rav Ashi answered him:

Yes,

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

and it was taught

[calmly, as an affirmation] that they disagreed:

As it was taught:

Ḥananya

(the son of Rabbi Yehoshua’s brother

[the Bach deleted this phrase, and this also appears to be the reading of the Ritva. Nevertheless, Rabbi Yehoshua was his uncle, as is explained by Rashi and the Ritva])

says:

Throughout that entire day

that they were on the ship,

they sat and deliberated on matters of halakha.

The previous evening

[in the evening],

my father’s brother decided

that is, Rabbi Yehoshua:

The halakha is in accordance with Rabban Gamliel with regard to a ship, and the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Akiva with regard to a pen and an enclosure.

And since he said, “The halakha is in accordance with Rabban Gamliel” with regard to a ship, it is evident that Rabbi Akiva disagreed with him, and that their disagreement was not merely over a stringency.

The conclusion that emerges from the discussion in explaining the Mishna

according to the approaches explained here is:

1.

Rabba’s opinion:

A pen and an enclosure:

According to Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, they are like four cubits, even though one had not spent Shabbat in them from before nightfall, since in any event he has only four cubits, and the Sages were lenient. But according to Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Akiva, since one had not spent Shabbat in them from before nightfall, they are not like four cubits.

A ship

that is stationary: According to Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, it is like four cubits. But according to Rabbi Akiva, it is not like four cubits, even though they had spent Shabbat there from before nightfall.

[The early authorities disagreed concerning the reason:

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

According to the Rashba and the Ritva: because one entered the ship intending to leave beyond his Shabbat limit, and “once he leaves his limit, the original law is nullified, and it is as though he had not spent Shabbat there.” See the Rashba for another explanation. According to the Rashba and the Ritva, the reason of Rabban Gamliel is that he follows his own position, that partitions in which one spent Shabbat are not required. According to Tosafot, Rabban Gamliel disagrees with the reasoning that partitions made to divert water are considered partitions, and his position is not specifically dependent on his own approach, since he spent Shabbat within these partitions, and according to everyone it is like four cubits. From Rashi’s wording in the Mishna, it clearly appears that Rabban Gamliel follows his own position; inevitably, this is not in accordance with Tosafot].

A moving ship:

According to everyone, as a matter of fundamental law one may traverse its entire area. Rabbi Akiva, however, imposes a stringency because of the uncertainty lest it have stopped, according to his position that this is prohibited, whereas Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, who permit it even when it stops, did not impose a stringency.

Practical halakha:

With regard to a pen and an enclosure: one may not traverse its entire area.

With regard to a stationary ship: one may traverse its entire area, because one had spent Shabbat there from before nightfall [and not like Rabban Gamliel, who would permit it even if one had not spent Shabbat there from before nightfall, nor like Rabbi Akiva, who prohibits it even if one had spent Shabbat there. This was also the position of Rabbi Yehoshua after he decided the matter, and this is the ruling issued by Rav and Shmuel].

With regard to a moving ship: according to the ruling we have adopted, there is no place for a stringency, since even if it stopped, it would be permitted. [One must say that Rabbi Yehoshua imposed a stringency before he decided that when it stops it is permitted, since he decided the matter only in the evening. This is also what the Chazon Ish wrote, section 109, subsection 13, according to Rabbi Zeira].

2.

Rabbi Zeira’s opinion:

A pen and an enclosure:

It is a dispute among the tanna’im, as in Rabba’s opinion.

A stationary ship:

According to everyone, one has only four cubits, since its partitions were made to divert water.

A moving ship:

According to Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, one may traverse its entire area because it is moving. But according to Rabbi Akiva, one may not traverse its entire area, because he does not accept, with regard to a moving ship, the reasoning that “since the ship carries him from the end of four cubits and onward, and so forth.” And as for the partitions, they were made to divert water.

Practical halakha:

With regard to a pen and an enclosure: one may not traverse its entire area.

With regard to a stationary ship: one may not traverse its entire area.

With regard to a moving ship: one may traverse its entire area. [This is Rabbi Yehoshua’s opinion, except that initially he was uncertain].

Rav Ḥananya raised a dilemma:

whether

there is

a prohibition of

Shabbat limits above ten

handbreadths,

or there is no

prohibition of

Shabbat limits above ten

handbreadths, as the Gemara proceeds to explain.

And we explain the dilemma: If there were

a pillar ten handbreadths high

handbreadths

and four handbreadths wide,

with the end of the Shabbat limit in its middle,

you need not raise the question

whether it is permitted to climb to its top and walk upon it beyond the limit because it is above ten handbreadths. Since

the

pillar

is solid ground, meaning that since it is convenient to walk upon, “it is proper walking,” and it is prohibited to walk beyond the Shabbat limit [Rashi].

The question arises:

1.

With regard to a pillar ten

handbreadths

high but not four handbreadths wide, with the end of the Shabbat limit in its middle, since “its use is not convenient” [Rashi, meaning that it is not convenient for walking], we raise the question whether it is permitted to climb to its top and proceed upon it [or from pillar to pillar, Ritva] beyond the Shabbat limit.

2.

Alternatively, the question arises in a case

where he

travels

above ten

by means of a leap,

through the use of a Divine Name.

These are the two cases concerning which we ask whether this is considered walking or not [Rashi. Later authorities explained Rashi’s words as follows: The question arises specifically concerning leaving the Shabbat limit above ten handbreadths, since that is not a “place of walking.” But below ten handbreadths, even if one did not leave his limit by ordinary walking, since the area below ten is connected to the ground, which is a place of walking, it is as though he left his limit on the ground. Up to ten handbreadths is one domain, whereas above ten handbreadths is another domain].

(Another version: With regard to a ship

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

what

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

Rav Hoshaya said: Come and hear

from our Mishna:

There was an incident in which they came from Phalandersin, and their ship sailed out to sea;

Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya traversed its entire area, while Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Akiva did not move beyond four cubits, as they wished to be stringent upon themselves.

Granted, if you say that there are Shabbat limits

above ten handbreadths,

this is why they wished

to be stringent.

But if you say that there are no Shabbat limits

above ten handbreadths,

why did they wish

to be stringent? After all, “an ordinary ship travels above ten handbreadths and does not rest, and is comparable to leaping through the air” [Rashi], so they should walk upon it as far as they wished?!

And we reject this proof:

As

Rava

said

and answered—below, concerning the incident at the end of our Mishna—it deals with a ship

moving

in

shallow water

[a place at the river’s edge where the water is not ten handbreadths deep, Ritva].

Here too,

it can be answered that this incident

involved a ship moving in shallow water,

for since it was scraping along below ten handbreadths, there is a prohibition of Shabbat limits.

Come and hear

from the conclusion of our Mishna:

Once they did not enter the harbor until it was already dark,

they said to Rabban Gamliel: May we disembark? He said to them: You may, for I had already been observing, and we were within the limit before it became dark.

Granted, if you say that there are Shabbat limits

above ten handbreadths, and it follows that when Shabbat began, while they were on the ship, they acquired their place of residence where they were, so that their permission depended on their having been within the limit before nightfall,

it is well.

But if you say that there are no Shabbat limits

above ten handbreadths, it follows that as long as they are on a ship above ten handbreadths they do not acquire a place of residence, and only when they enter below ten handbreadths 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 limit

—what would it matter if we had not been within the limit

”? They will acquire a place of residence where they disembark, and they are like residents of the city [based on the Ritva]?!

He said

and rejected this:

Rava said: The ship was moving

when Shabbat began

in shallow water,

and it was therefore quite possible that they had acquired a place of residence beyond the limit.

Come and hear:

from

these seven teachings

[seven statements, namely the seven types of tereifa mentioned in Chullin 42; Meiri]

that were stated on Shabbat morning

[which were said on Shabbat morning]

before Rav Ḥisda in Sura,

and

toward Shabbat evening

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

before

(Rava

[Rabba])

in Pumbedita,

which is beyond Sura’s Shabbat limit.

But

who

was the one who

stated them

and thereby went beyond the Shabbat limit?

Was it not Elijah

the prophet—who is obligated to observe Shabbat—who

stated them

?! Evidently, there are no Shabbat limits above ten handbreadths,

and therefore Elijah was permitted to leave Sura’s Shabbat limit by leaping above ten handbreadths. [Explained according to the Meiri]

And we reject this proof:

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 dilemma whether there are Shabbat limits above ten handbreadths:

One who says:

“I am a nazirite on the day that

the Messiah,

the son of David, comes,” he is permitted to drink wine on Shabbatot and Festivals,

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