Eruvin 47b — the Talmud in English

According to ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

because not everyone is granted the ability to study and understand his Mishna

and understand his Mishna, since there is a rabbi whose Mishna is arranged in his mouth, and who teaches his students in a concise manner [Rashi].

And Rabbi Yosei said

to prove his statement:

There was an incident involving Yosef the kohen, who went to his teacher in Sidon —

even though it is outside the Land of Israel — in order

to study Torah,

because one is not granted the ability to learn from just anyone.

And Rabbi Yohanan said: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yosei

who permits a person to become ritually impure even when he can find someone else from whom to learn.

And now we seek to prove that Rabbi Yohanan himself did not accept those general principles, for

why was it necessary

for Rabbi Yohanan to rule that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yosei,

when you said that when Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei

disagree,

the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yosei?!

Rather, it is necessarily the case that Rabbi Yohanan himself did not accept those general principles.

Abaye said:

This too is not a proof, for

it was necessary

to explain here that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yosei, because

one might have thought: this applies only

when the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yosei when they disagree

in a Mishna,

since the Mishnayot are precise, and we certainly know which statements are those of Rabbi Yosei,

but in a baraita

where one might say that perhaps the statements of Rabbi Yosei were exchanged with those of Rabbi Yehuda,

say that it does not apply

and the halakha should not be established according to those general principles.

It teaches us

that those general principles apply even in a baraita [Gaon Yaakov, based on the Rif and the Rosh].

Rather,

since we have found no support for what Rav Mesharsheya said, that those general principles do not apply, we explain Rav Mesharsheya’s statement as follows:

this is what he means:

Those general principles are not accepted by everyone, for Rav —

the Rav mentioned above, who had to rule in the case of establishing one’s Shabbat limit by standing with one’s feet that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda, and did not rely on the principle that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda when he disagrees with Rabbi Meir —

does not accept those general principles,

[as we said above, for from this statement of Rav it is evident that he holds that those general principles do not apply].

The following discussion is explained according to the interpretation that is more inclined to be the halakhic ruling in Biur Halakha.

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said:

The property of a gentile does not acquire a Shabbat residence.

That is, it is obvious that we do not say that it is forbidden to carry the property beyond its owner’s Shabbat limit, as we say regarding the property of a Jew, since a gentile has no Shabbat residence.

Rather, Shmuel teaches us that the objects belonging to a gentile do not acquire a Shabbat residence for themselves, such that it would be forbidden to carry them beyond their own limit from the place where they spent Shabbat. Instead, anyone who takes them may carry them as far as he may walk, like ownerless property according to the Sages [Ritva].

And the Rach wrote that if a Jew borrows them from a gentile, he may carry them as far as he may walk. See Rashi’s wording and what is written in Gaon Yaakov.

And we explain it:

according to whom

[according to whose view] did Shmuel say this?

If you say that it is according to the Sages,

who hold that ownerless property does not acquire a Shabbat residence, and that Shmuel said that even the property of a gentile does not acquire a Shabbat residence,

that is obvious.

Now, if the ownerless property, which has no owners,

and which could be considered to acquire a Shabbat residence for itself, is nevertheless said by the Sages to

not acquire a Shabbat residence, while the property of a gentile, which has owners,

does not have a Shabbat residence, since “ordinary property follows its owners and is no better than they are” [the wording of the Ritva], is it necessary

to ask

whether it does not acquire a Shabbat residence for itself?!

Rather, it is according to the opinion of Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri —

who holds that ownerless property acquires a Shabbat residence for itself — that Shmuel spoke.

And

this is what

he teaches us,

Shmuel:

You may say that Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri said

that objects

acquire a Shabbat residence

for themselves;

that applies only

to

ownerless property,

since

it has no owners. But the property of a gentile, which has owners,

follows its owners, who have no Shabbat residence, and therefore

does not

acquire a Shabbat residence for itself.

They raise an objection from a source: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says:

One who borrows a utensil from a gentile —

who is a resident of the same city, and the utensil spent Shabbat within that city’s limit —

on a Festival .

And likewise, one who lends a utensil to a gentile

who is a resident of the same city

on the eve of a Festival —

for since it is lent to him, it is like the rest of the gentile’s property [Ritva]—and it spent Shabbat within the city’s limit —

and he returned it

[the gentile to the Jew]

on the Festival.

And

likewise,

the utensils and storehouses

[that is, storehouses of utensils] of ownerless property [Tosafot. See Rashi’s wording and what Tosafot and the Ritva wrote about it]

that spent Shabbat within the limit

of the city.

All these items that we mentioned [Ritva] acquire a Shabbat residence in the city, and therefore

they have two thousand cubits in every direction

from the city .

And

likewise,

a gentile who brought produce

to the city

from outside the city’s limit

of the city, since the produce acquired a Shabbat residence in its original place, it follows that it was taken outside its own limit, and

this

the Jew

may not move from its place

which is its four-cubit area, like anyone who left his Shabbat limit, who has only four cubits.

We have learned from this baraita that the property of a gentile acquires a Shabbat residence. Now this is difficult for Rav Yehuda, who said that Shmuel said:

Granted, if you say that Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri holds that the property of a gentile acquires a Shabbat residence, then

this

baraita is in accordance with whom? It is Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri

[that is, Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, who said in the baraita that the property of a gentile acquires a Shabbat residence, said this according to Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri’s view, Rashi].

But if you say that Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri holds

also that

the property of a gentile does not acquire a Shabbat residence,

then

this baraita,

which holds that the property of a gentile does acquire a Shabbat residence,

is in accordance with whom

is it?

It is neither Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri nor the Sages,

since both hold that the property of a gentile does not acquire a Shabbat residence?!

And we answer:

In fact —

as you said —

Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri holds that the property of a gentile acquires a Shabbat residence,

and this baraita is in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri. However,

when Shmuel said

that the property of a gentile does not acquire a Shabbat residence, he did not say it according to Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri, as we initially thought. Rather, it is

according to the Sages

that he said it.

And as for what you said

to ask, that if Shmuel was speaking

according to the Sages,

then

it is obvious,

[since even ownerless property does not acquire a Shabbat residence, and certainly the property of a gentile, which has owners, does not]?!

It is not difficult.

For

one might have thought

that the property of a gentile acquires a Shabbat residence for itself in the place where it is, rather than depending on the place of its gentile owner, and this is due to

a decree concerning a gentile owner, lest one confuse it with a Jewish owner:

just as utensils belonging to a Jew have the status of a Shabbat residence, so too utensils belonging to a gentile should have a Shabbat residence [even though the cases are not identical, since Jewish utensils have the Shabbat residence of their owner, whereas here we are discussing giving the utensils a residence of their own, independent of their owner’s residence].

He teaches us

that Shmuel does not issue such a decree, and the property does not acquire a Shabbat residence.

And Rav Hiyya bar Avin said that Rabbi Yohanan said:

The property of a gentile acquires a Shabbat residence

for itself even according to the Sages. This is not the basic law, but rather because of

a decree concerning a gentile owner, lest one confuse it with a Jewish owner.

Those rams

[rams belonging to gentiles]

that came

on the Festival, brought by gentiles from outside the Shabbat limit [Rashi; this is also evident from the continuation of the discussion]

to Mavrekhta

[the name of a place].

Rava permitted the residents of

the city

Mehoza

[Rashi wrote that it was near Mavrekhta, within four thousand cubits, and that the rams came on the Festival by means of an eruv. His intention must be that this is the factual situation: Mehoza was farther from Mavrekhta than the limit of Mehoza. But this is not needed for the matter stated here; even if Mehoza had been close to Mavrekhta, everything stated here would apply]

to buy them

from the gentiles and bring them on the Festival to Mehoza, even though the gentiles had brought them from outside the Shabbat limit [so the rams had been taken outside the limit of the place where they had acquired their Shabbat residence], and it was forbidden to move them beyond their four-cubit area [Rashi].

Ravina said to Rava: What is your reasoning

for permitting this, even though it is outside the rams’ Shabbat limit?

Is it because

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The property of a gentile does not acquire a Shabbat residence?

But

whenever

Shmuel and Rabbi Yohanan disagree, the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan, and

here too Rabbi Yohanan disagrees with Shmuel, since

Rabbi Hiyya bar Avin said that Rabbi Yohanan said that the property of a gentile acquires a Shabbat residence,

because of

a decree concerning a gentile owner, lest one confuse it with a Jewish owner.

Why, then, did you permit this in accordance with Shmuel, when Rabbi Yohanan disagrees with him?!

Rava then said

[he reconsidered and said]: Although the residents of Mehoza are forbidden to take the rams to their city, since the halakha is that the property of a gentile acquires a Shabbat residence,

let them be sold

[the rams]

to the residents of Mavrekhta,

so that they may carry them throughout the entire city. Although the rams are outside the limit of the place where they were at the onset of Shabbat, the residents of Mavrekhta may carry them.

And this is because

the entire area of Mavrekhta,

the entire city of Mavrekhta, since it is surrounded by partitions, is

with regard

to

their

rams

like four cubits

alone

is considered. The law of the rams is therefore like that of a person who left his Shabbat limit: although he may not walk beyond four cubits, if he is in an area surrounded by partitions, he may walk throughout the entire enclosed area. This is as we learned at the beginning of our chapter according to Rabban Gamliel, whose opinion is the halakhic ruling, as Rav said above, on folio 42 …

Rabbi Hiyya taught:

A water channel

[a trench filled with water, according to Tosafot and the Shulchan Arukh; see Rashi’s words carefully, as they require explanation]

that

is located

between the Shabbat limits

of two cities whose distance from each other is four thousand cubits, with half of the channel within the limit of one city and half within the limit of the other, may not be used to draw water from it on the Festival, because the water that spent Shabbat within the limit of one city acquired the city’s Shabbat residence, which gives it two thousand cubits in every direction from the city [and when it is at the end of the city’s limit, it may be moved only toward the city]. Since the water that spent Shabbat within the limit of one city mixes with the water within the limit of the other city and thereby goes outside its Shabbat limit, it is forbidden to move it from its place [Rashi] .

of two cities, whose distance from one another is four thousand cubits, with half of the reservoir within the tehum of this city and half within the tehum of the other city: It is forbidden to draw water from it on a Festival, because the water that spent Shabbat within the tehum of one city acquired that city's Shabbat residence, with two thousand cubits in every direction from the city [and when it is at the edge of the city's tehum, it may be moved only toward the city]. Since the water that spent Shabbat within the tehum of one city mixes with the water within the tehum of the other city and thus goes outside its tehum, it is forbidden to move it from its place [Rashi] .