Eruvin 45b — the Talmud in English

provided that this one does not take out

his bread or his objects

from

his four cubits

into

the four cubits

of his fellow.

That is: to those cubits that do not overlap; since the law of his objects is like his own law, and as we learned: “An animal and utensils are according to the feet of their owners” [a person can lead it only where its owner can walk, Rashi, Beitza 37a], and just as he himself is forbidden to go outside his four cubits, so is it forbidden to take his objects outside them.

There were three

people

and the middle one was enclosed between them,

for example, the outer ones were eight cubits distant from one another, and each one designated his four cubits toward his fellow [the four cubits of this one ended at the beginning of the four cubits of that one]; the middle one stood six cubits distant from the one standing to his right, and two cubits separated him from the one standing to his left. The middle one designated his four cubits toward the one standing to his right, and it emerged that two of his cubits overlapped with those of this one, and two of his cubits overlapped with those of that one [Ritva below 48a].

It is:

He,

the middle one,

is permitted with them, and they

the outer ones

are permitted with him,

that is: it is permitted for him to use with each one of them those two cubits that he shares with them [Ritva there].

And the two outer ones are forbidden with one another,

that is: although the two outer ones are forbidden, each one, to use the other’s cubits, we do not say: The middle one too should be forbidden to use with each one of them, lest the outer ones come to use with one another [based on Ritva there].

And Rabbeinu Yehonatan explained it differently: There was room to decree lest the middle one come to take out from the cubits of this one into the cubits of that one. However, from Rashi below 48a it is explicitly implied that it is in the manner of the Ritva.

Rabbi Shimon said:

This law that we stated, that “he is permitted with them and they are permitted with him,” even though the outer ones are forbidden with one another,

to what is this comparable?

To three courtyards that open into one another, and

indeed

open—

each one of them—also

to the public domain,

and consequently it is forbidden to take out utensils that rested in a house in one domain into a house in another domain until they make courtyard eruvin; and if they did not make an eruv, each one is permitted to carry within its own domain. [But if they did not open to the public domain, but people passed through them to exit to the public domain by way of one another, the inner courtyard would prohibit the outer one from carrying even in its own domain if it did not make an eruv with the inner one, and the law of our Mishna would not apply here, Rashi].

And from the law of our Mishna you learn also concerning three courtyards:

If

the two

outer ones

made an eruv with the middle one

but the outer ones did not make an eruv with one another.

It is:

It

the middle one

is permitted with them

to take out from the middle one to the outer ones.

And they,

the outer ones,

are permitted with it

to take out from the outer ones to the middle one.

And the two outer ones are forbidden with one another,

that is: although the two outer ones are forbidden to take out from one to the other, we do not decree upon the middle one on account of the outer ones. [The Gemara explains below that the Sages disagreed with Rabbi Shimon concerning three courtyards because they decreed lest even the inhabitants of the outer ones come to take out from one to the other. And Rabbi Shimon says to the Sages: What is different that concerning three courtyards you disagree with me, whereas concerning three people, with regard to resting within four cubits, you agree with me?! And there the reason of the Sages, who distinguished between the subjects, is explained].

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna that the Sages and Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri disagreed whether a person acquires a place of resting while he is asleep; and according to the Sages it is obvious: Since they hold that a person does not acquire a place of resting without his knowledge, ownerless objects too, since they have no owners who intend to acquire a place of resting for them, do not acquire a place of resting, and one may lead these objects wherever he wishes [and we do not say that it is forbidden to take them outside their four cubits, just as we say concerning a person who did not intend to acquire a place of resting].

But concerning the view of Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri it is unresolved.

Rava raised a question:

What does Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri hold,

who said in our Mishna that even a sleeping person acquired a place of resting?

Does he reason:

Even

ownerless objects acquire a place of resting,

because in his view intention is not needed to acquire a place of resting.

And if you say: If so, why did they disagree concerning one who is asleep, and did not disagree concerning all ownerless objects?!

I can say to you:

And properly they should have disagreed [as Rashi’s version has], the Sages and Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri,

concerning

utensils

that are ownerless,

and the fact that they disagree concerning a person is to inform you of the force of the Sages,

that even a sleeping person does not acquire a place of resting, which is a novelty:

For even though one might say: Since when awake he acquired [a place of resting], when asleep he should likewise acquire [a place of resting], it teaches us

our Mishna

that he does not.

Or perhaps Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri holds that, ordinarily, ownerless objects do not acquire a place of resting,

since it is without intention,

but here,

with a sleeping person,

this is the reason

that he acquires a place of resting even though there is no intention:

Since when awake he acquired [a place of resting], when asleep he likewise acquired [a place of resting].

Rav Yosef said, come and hear

from what we learned in a beraita:

Rain that fell on the eve of a Festival

acquired a place of resting for itself when the Festival grew dark upon it, and

it has two thousand cubits

only

in every direction.

But if the rain fell

on the Festival

itself and did not acquire a place of resting at the onset of the Festival, even now it does not acquire a place of resting, and therefore

it is like the feet of any person,

that is: like the feet of the first person who acquires it; and even if he afterward gave it to another, the second may lead it only to the place where the first could walk [Tosafot].

And from this beraita, which holds that rain, which is ownerless property, acquires a place of resting, resolve our question:

Granted, if you say that Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri holds that ownerless objects acquire a place of resting, whose view is this

this beraita, which holds that ownerless objects acquire a place of resting?

Rabbi Yohanan

ben Nuri

is it.

But if you say

that even according to Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri

ownerless

objects do not acquire a place of resting, then whose

beraita

is it?

For

not Rabbi Yohanan

ben Nuri

is it, and not the Sages?!

Abaye sat and stated this teaching,

of Rav Yosef, who resolved from this beraita that according to Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri ownerless objects acquire a place of resting.

Rav Safra said to Abaye: But perhaps

it cannot be resolved from here; one can say that even according to the view of the tanna of the beraita, ownerless objects do not acquire a place of resting, but in the beraita

we are dealing with rain close to the city

within its boundary

and the people of that city have their minds upon it,

and since so, the rain has a place of resting like the feet of that city. [And that which it says in the beraita, “It has two thousand cubits in every direction,” does not mean two thousand cubits from the place where it fell, as we initially thought, but two thousand cubits in every direction of the city].

He said to him,

Abaye,

It cannot enter your mind

to explain the reason of the beraita as being because the rain is like the utensils of the townspeople, for from another place it must be established that Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri holds that ownerless objects acquire a place of resting, and consequently this is also the reason for this beraita.

In

one place

we learned:

A well

of water

belonging to an individual,

it is

according to the feet of

the

individual,

the owner of the well, and the water may be led only to the place where its owner may walk; and if the owner of the well made an eruv to the east, the one who draws the water cannot lead it toward the west even one step.

And

a well

belonging to that city,

it is

according to the feet of that city,

which has two thousand cubits in every direction; and even if the one who draws the water made an eruv to the east or to the west, he cannot take it beyond the city’s two thousand cubits [Rashi].

And

a well

of those who ascended from Babylonia [a well that stands on the road by which one ascends from Babylonia to the Land of Israel], which is ownerless, the water is

[a well located along the road from Babylonia to the Land of Israel], which is ownerless, has water

according to the feet of the one who draws it,

who acquired it from the ownerless property; and once he acquired it, it is according to his feet, and even if he gave it to another person, that person may lead it only to the place where the first one who drew it can walk [Rashi]. And the reason that in the well of those who ascended from Babylonia the water is according to the feet of the one who draws it is that ownerless objects do not acquire a place of resting.

And

in another place

it was taught

not so:

For it was taught:

A well of the tribes [that is, of those who ascended from Babylonia, in Rashi’s language],

that is, of those who ascended from Babylonia, its water is not according to the feet of the one who draws it, but it acquired a place of resting in its place, and

it has two thousand cubits in every direction,

for this beraita holds that ownerless objects acquire a place of resting.

But

they contradict one another [the Mishna and the beraita],

[the Mishna and the beraita].

rather, does this not teach

the beraita

[is] Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri,

who holds in our Mishna that a sleeping person acquires a place of resting, and the same applies to ownerless objects.

And

this—

the Mishna—

[is] the Sages,

who hold that ownerless objects do not acquire a place of resting.

When

Abaye

came before Rav Yosef [who earlier explained the beraita concerning rain as holding that ownerless objects acquire a place of resting],

[who had earlier interpreted the beraita about rain as holding that ownerless objects acquire a place of residence],

he said to him,

Abaye to Rav Yosef:

This is what Rav Safra meant

to challenge your words,

and this is how I answered him [and this and this I answered him].

[this was my response to him].

Rav Yosef said to him,

Rav Yosef to Abaye:

And why did you not say to him

to Rav Safra

from its own body [Why did you not prove to him from the body of the beraita concerning rain itself that the reason is that ownerless objects acquire a place of resting]?!

[why did you not prove from the beraita itself that its reason is that ownerless objects acquire a place of residence]?

For if it enters your mind

that the beraita is

dealing with rain close to the city,

and the water acquires a place of resting by virtue of the townspeople and not by virtue of itself, what is

this

that the beraita teaches:

It has

“for it”

two thousand cubits in every direction,

which implies by virtue of the water itself?!

And

this, according to the feet of the inhabitants [from Rashi it appears that he does not read “inhabitants”]

[Rashi apparently does not have the word “residents”]

of that city, would have been necessary for it,

for this wording implies that it has a place of resting by virtue of the inhabitants of the city [explained according to Rashi’s implication].

And necessarily the beraita holds that ownerless objects acquire a place of resting, and it follows the view of Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri.

The Master said:

Rain that fell, etc.,

on the Festival, it is according to the feet of any person.

And we wondered about it:

And why

is it permitted to carry it?!

But rain that fell today from the clouds was on the eve of the Festival in the ocean [and today the clouds drank from it, and it fell], and if so

it should acquire [as Rashi’s version has] the water, at the onset of the Festival,

[as Rashi’s version reads] at the beginning of the Festival

a place of resting in the ocean,

where it was; and since the water left its place of resting on the Festival, it should be forbidden to carry it outside its four cubits [like one who left his boundary, who has only four cubits]?!

And since we see in the beraita that it did not acquire a place of resting,

let us say

that this beraita

is not according to Rabbi Eliezer, for if it were according to Rabbi Eliezer, he said: “The entire world drinks from the waters of the ocean”;

rather, it follows Rabbi Yehoshua, who holds in the Gemara, Ta'anit 9a, that the clouds drink from the upper waters, and since so, these waters did not acquire a place of resting.

He said

Rav Yitzhak, rejecting this:

Here,

in the beraita,

we are dealing with clouds that gathered [became filled with water]

[had filled with water]

from the eve of the Festival,

and since so, the water does not acquire a place of resting from the eve of the Festival, as the Gemara explains below and proceeds.

And we wondered: In any event, how is it permitted to carry the rain,

and

let us suspect

perhaps these

clouds that were seen yesterday

went away [departed],

[they dispersed],

and these

clouds from which the rain fell today

are other ones,

having become filled today from the water that was yesterday in the ocean and acquired a place of resting there, and it should be forbidden to carry it outside its four cubits?!

And we answer: The beraita is speaking of rain that fell from clouds

that have a sign within them [that have identifying signs, by which one recognizes that they were already present yesterday].

[they had signs by which one could recognize that they had already existed the day before].

And if you wish, say:

Indeed, it is a doubt whether these clouds are the very ones seen yesterday or whether they are other ones; nevertheless, it is permitted to carry the water outside its four cubits, because

it is a doubt concerning a matter of their words [for the prohibition of taking outside the boundary is only rabbinic],

[the prohibition against carrying beyond the Shabbat boundary is only rabbinic],

and a doubt concerning a matter of their words is treated leniently.

And now we return to explain Rabbi Yitzhak’s answer, who said that here we are dealing with clouds that gathered from the eve of the Festival, and we ask:

And should

the water

acquire a place of resting

on the eve of the Festival

in the clouds,

and since it left the boundary of the clouds, it should be forbidden to carry it outside its four cubits; and necessarily:

Resolve from it

that this beraita

[holds] that there is no

prohibition of

boundaries above ten

handbreadths, and consequently it is not applicable that it should acquire a place of resting above ten handbreadths;

for if there are boundaries

above ten handbreadths,

it should acquire

the water

a place of resting in the clouds.

And we reject this:

I can always say to you that there are boundaries

above ten handbreadths, except that the rain that was in the clouds cannot acquire a place of resting there, because

the water in the cloud is absorbed within them [the water is swallowed inside the clouds],

as though it does not exist, and it does not acquire a place of resting there from the previous day.