Eruvin 45a — the Talmud in English

But did we not learn:

one who went outside the boundary, etc.:

Rabbi Eliezer says:

if he went out

two

cubits only beyond the boundary,

he may enter

the boundary of his city, and he is like the rest of the inhabitants of the city; but if he went out

three

cubits,

he may not enter.

And is it not that

what is the reason of

the reason of

Rabbi Eliezer—

who holds that if he went out two [cubits] he may enter—is that he follows

his reasoning

[his method]

as he said concerning one who went outside the boundary, that he has four cubits,

with regard to one who went beyond the Shabbat boundary, that he has four cubits

“and he is in their midst”

of the four cubits; that is, they give him two cubits in every direction from the place where he stands.

And

therefore, if he went out only two cubits,

the four cubits that the Sages gave him

[which they gave him once he went outside the boundary]

are considered as though they are contained

[that is: although they are not actually contained, but merely adjacent to his first boundary—for he went out two complete cubits, this is sufficient, since “they are considered as though they are contained”]

and

therefore

he said

that Rabbi Eliezer

may enter.

Apparently, the containment of boundaries

[even though he did not spend that time in those four cubits before nightfall]

is a matter, and this is a difficulty against Rabba, who says that the containment of boundaries is not a matter?!

Rabba bar bar Hanna said

[many emended it to “Hanin” or “Hanan,” because Rabba bar bar Hanna lived much earlier, as the Gaon Yaakov wrote] to

Abaye,

and was astonished at his difficulty, which he had raised from the words of Rabbi Eliezer, who disagrees here with the Sages:

And do you raise an objection to the master from Rabbi Eliezer

[are you raising a difficulty against Rabba]?! What sort of difficulty is this from an individual against whom the majority disagreed and said that he may not enter even one cubit [Ritva]?!

Abaye said to him: Yes,

indeed, I raise the difficulty from Rabbi Eliezer, since

I heard it from the master

[for I heard Rabba himself] say:

The Sages have disagreed with Rabbi Eliezer only in the case of an optional matter,

the Sages have disagreed with Rabbi Eliezer only in the case of an optional matter,

but

in the case of a mitzva matter they agree with him,

the Sages agreeing with Rabbi Eliezer that we apply containment; and I properly raised the difficulty from this Mishna .

We learned in the Mishna:

And all who go out to rescue may return to their place:

And it implies that this is what it says: if he went outside the boundary in order to save lives—that is, he went out with permission—he may return to his city and to his boundary from wherever he is. And therefore we ask:

And

if

even

if he went outside the city

a great deal

[a lot]—more than two thousand cubits from the end of the city’s boundary—is it permitted for them to return to their place?!

But you said

in the

first clause

of the Mishna: one who went out with permission, etc., has

two thousand cubits

from the place where they informed him—and the same applies from the place where he rescued—

and no more,

and how can it be said that he has more than two thousand cubits?!

Rabbi Judah said in the name of

to resolve the contradiction,

Rav:

The Mishna does not come to state a law among the laws of boundaries; rather, this is what it says:

that

all who go out to rescue, whose weapons are upon them,

return with their weapons

of theirs

to their place

[that is: to the place to which the Sages permitted them]. We do not say: since the act has been completed, let them cast their weapons off themselves and not violate Shabbat by carrying four cubits in the public domain and by bringing something in from the public domain to the private domain [Rabbenu Yehonatan]. The reason is explained in the Gemara below.

And we are astonished at the difficulty we raised—according to the plain meaning of the Mishna, which implies that they are permitted to return to their city even if it is farther away than two thousand cubits—from the first clause of the Mishna, where one who goes out with permission has only two thousand cubits:

And what difficulty

is this?!

Perhaps

the first clause of the Mishna deals only with testimony concerning the new month or with a midwife, while the latter clause of the Mishna deals with one who went out to rescue from enemies, and

rescuing

from enemies

is different,

for there is concern that perhaps the enemies will pursue him, and therefore he is permitted to enter the city even if it is very far away?!

Rather, if there is a difficulty, this is the difficulty,

that is: because of another difficulty Rav explained that our Mishna comes to say that they return with their weapons to their place, for he had a difficulty from another Mishna, from which it is proven that even one who goes out to rescue from enemies has only two thousand cubits.

For we learned

in tractate Rosh Hashana, concerning witnesses of the sanctification of the new month who went outside their boundary in order to testify:

At first they would not move

the witnesses who came to testify

from there

[from the court before which they came to testify]

the entire day

like others who go outside the boundary, who have only four cubits;

Rabban Gamaliel the Elder instituted that they have two thousand cubits in every direction.

And not only these did they say

that they have two thousand cubits in every direction,

but even a midwife

[a woman who assists at a birth]

who comes to assist at a birth, and one who comes to rescue from an invading force

[an enemy army]

and from a river

[which rose over its banks and washed away the inhabitants of the city and the children, Rashi there]

and from a collapse and from a fire—they are like the inhabitants of the city

who came there,

and they have two thousand cubits in every direction.

And this is the difficulty we raised:

And

if

further

[more than two thousand cubits in every direction]

not

is it permitted for one who came to rescue from the invading force to go out?!

But you said

in our Mishna:

all who go out

“to rescue”

return

as far as

their place,

and it implies

even a great deal

more than two thousand cubits?! And because of this difficulty

Rav said

Judah said in the name of Rav

to explain our Mishna:

that they return with their weapons to their place.

And

as it was taught

that they are permitted to return with their weapons to their place:

For it was taught:

At first they would leave their weapons

when returning

in the house adjacent to the wall

[in the outer house that they found outside the wall; to the proofreader: I did not understand]

; once the enemies recognized them

who had gone outside the city,

and pursued them, and the rescuers entered

the rescuers

to take their weapons

from that house where they had left them,

and

the

enemies entered after them,

and because the house was narrow,

they pressed

the rescuers

against one another and killed one another, more than they were killed by

the

enemies.

At that time they instituted that they should return to their place with their weapons.

Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak said

to reconcile the contradiction between our Mishna, which teaches that those who go out to rescue return to their place, and the Mishna of Rosh Hashana, which teaches that even one who comes to rescue has only two thousand cubits in every direction,

it is not difficult:

Here,

in the Mishna of Rosh Hashana, it deals with

Israel having defeated the nations of the world,

and they need not fear the enemies.

Here,

in our Mishna, it deals with

the nations of the world having defeated themselves

[that is: Israel], and there is concern that they will pursue them; therefore they return to their place.

Rav Judah said in the name of Rav: Gentiles who besiege towns

of

Israel

[over monetary matters, as he explains below]

may not go out against them with their weapons, and one may not violate Shabbat on their account.

It was also taught so: Gentiles who besiege, etc.

[in accordance with all the words of Rav Judah].

When are these words said? When they came over monetary matters; but if they came over matters of life, they go out against them with their weapons and violate Shabbat on their account.

And in a town adjacent to the frontier

[a town that separates between the boundary of Israel and the boundary of the nations]

even if they did not come over matters of life, but over matters of straw and hay, they go out against them with their weapons and violate Shabbat on their account,

since there is concern that perhaps they will capture it, and from there the land will be easy for them to conquer.

Rav Yosef bar Minyomi said in the name of Rav Nahman: And Babylonia is considered like a town adjacent to the frontier; and the translation of this is: Nehardea,

that is: concerning the city of Nehardea in Babylonia they said that it is considered like a town adjacent to the frontier, since it was adjacent to gentiles on one side and to towns in which Israel, the exiles, lived, on the other side.

Rabbi Dostai of

the city

Biri

expounded a verse, that one violates Shabbat on account of gentiles who came over matters of straw and hay in a town adjacent to the frontier:

And this is how he expounded it:

What is the meaning of that which is written:

“And they told David, saying: Behold, the Philistines are fighting against Keilah, and they are raiding

[plundering, Metzudot]

the threshing floors?”

A tanna taught: Keilah was a town adjacent to the frontier.

And they came only over matters of straw and hay.

As it is written: “And they are raiding

‘the threshing floors.’”

And it is written: “And David inquired of Him

’

saying: Shall I go and strike these Philistines? And Hashem said

to David: Go and strike the Philistines and save Keilah.”

And since we find that David placed himself at risk in order to rescue, we learn that monetary matters in a town adjacent to the frontier are like matters of life, and one violates Shabbat on its account [according to the Ritva’s second answer, and as implied by Rashi].

And now we explain the verse:

What was it that he was asking

David, when he inquired of Hashem, “Shall I go and strike the Philistines?”

If you say

that it was Shabbat, and David asked

whether it is permitted

to violate Shabbat for this,

or whether it is forbidden.

This is not possible, for

the court of Samuel the Ramathite was still in existence,

and he should have asked them the halakha, and not through the Urim and Tummim [for “it is not in heaven,” the later authorities].

Rather,

this is what David asked of Hashem:

whether he would succeed

in his war,

or not

succeed.

It is also precise

that David was asking about his success in the war:

as it is written,

that they answered him:

“Go and strike the Philistines and save Keilah”,

for it follows that he asked whether he would succeed in saving Keilah, and they answered him that indeed he would succeed in his war to save it.

Learn from it!

Mishna:

One who sat on the road

to rest, for he was tired, and did not know that he was within the city’s boundary, and Shabbat became dark for him there,

and he stood

from his rest

and saw

that

he was close to the city

within its boundary.

Behold:

since

it was not his intention

that his place of residence for Shabbat should be in the city,

he may not enter

the city to be like its inhabitants, who have two thousand cubits from their city in every direction; rather, he walks two thousand cubits from his place, and he does not enter the city except as far as the place where his two thousand cubits end,

the words of Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Judah says:

Even though he did not intend that his place of residence for Shabbat should be in the city, but in his place,

he may enter

the city, so that his law is like theirs, and he may walk even to a place that is two thousand cubits distant from his place of residence, for his law is like that of the rest of the inhabitants of the city, who are permitted to walk throughout the entire city and two thousand cubits in every direction.

And the Ritva explained the reason for the matter: although this person sat here and intended to establish his place of residence here, we have clear evidence that since he intended to go to the city, his desire was to be like the inhabitants of the city as much as possible; and if he had known that he was within the boundary, he would have entered. Since this is so, all that he intended to reside here was only an error, and the intention of his heart was that he should establish residence with the inhabitants of the city as much as possible; and we follow the intention of his heart.

Rabbi Judah said

to prove his words:

An incident occurred, and Rabbi Tarfon entered

the city, to a place that was more than two thousand cubits distant from his place of residence, and although he was

without intending,

as Rabbi Judah holds.

Gemara:

It was taught: Rabbi Judah said: An incident occurred involving Rabbi Tarfon, who was walking on the road

on Friday

and Shabbat became dark for him, and he spent the night outside the city; in the morning cattle herders found him and said to him: Rabbi! Behold, the city is before you; enter! He entered

Rabbi Tarfon into the city

and sat in the house of study

which was farther from his place of residence than the Shabbat boundary

and expounded the entire day.

They said to him

[and in the Sheiltot the version is:

Rabbi Akiva said to him]:

And

is that a proof?!

But

perhaps in the heart

of Rabbi Tarfon

there was

an intention to enter [Rabbenu Hananel; that is, he knew that he was within the city boundary and intended to establish residence with the inhabitants of the city].

Or

perhaps

the house of study was contained within his boundary

of the place where he spent the night at the onset of Shabbat—

was,

so that even if he had established his residence in his place, he was permitted to come as far as the house of study.

Mishna:

One who slept on the road and did not know

until

[Jerusalem Talmud and Rif]

it became dark

that he had not intended to establish a place of residence in his place, nevertheless

he has two thousand cubits in every direction, the words of Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri,

for a person establishes a place of residence even without knowledge [Ritva].

And the Sages say:

One who sleeps does not establish a place of residence, and since he did not establish a place of residence during twilight, he no longer establishes one even when it became dark, although he awoke [Ritva].

And therefore

he has only four cubits .

And the Mishna explains the law of the four cubits mentioned here and everywhere:

Rabbi Eliezer says: And he—

he establishes his place of residence of four cubits—

in their midst

of the four cubits; that is: he has two cubits on each of his sides [besides the place occupied by his body, Or Zaru’a in understanding Rashi].

Rabbi Judah says:

Those four cubits depend on his choice, and

he may go in whichever direction he wishes,

that is: he chooses four cubits wherever he wishes, and goes there. [From Rashi it appears that he did not have the word “go,” and the intention of the Mishna is: he chooses four cubits in whichever direction he wishes].

And Rabbi Judah agrees

with Rabbi Eliezer:

that if he chose

two cubits on this side and two cubits on that side,

he cannot retract

even from this choice. [Rabbi Judah’s words are explained according to Rashi’s words below, 48a, s.v. “this is the first tanna,” and this is also precise in Rashi’s wording in our Mishna].

If there were two

who established a place of residence of four cubits, one beside the other, and

some of the cubits of one were within the cubits of the other,

for example, they were six cubits distant from one another and each chose his four cubits toward his fellow, so that two cubits of each overlapped.

These two

bring

their bread that is with them

and eat in the middle,

within those two cubits,