Eruvin 47b (מז:) — the Talmud in English

According to

for not everyone is privileged to learn and understand a person's teaching

and understand his Mishna, as there is a master 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 priest, who went to his master in Sidon—

although it is outside Eretz Yisrael—in order

to study Torah,

since one is not privileged to learn from everyone.

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

that it is permitted to become impure even when one can find someone from whom to learn.

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

why would Rabbi Yohanan need

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 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 disagreement took place

in a Mishna,

since the Mishnayot are precise, and we know with certainty which statements are those of Rabbi Yosei;

but in a beraita,

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

say that it does not apply,

that the halakha is established according to these principles.

It teaches us

that these principles apply even in a beraita [Gaon Yaakov, based on the Rif and the Rosh].

Rather,

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

This is what he is saying:

These principles are not universally accepted, for Rav—

the Rav mentioned above, who had to rule in the case of establishing an eruv with one's feet 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 these principles,

as we said above, that this statement of Rav proves that he holds that these principles do not apply.

The following passage is explained in accordance with the interpretation that the Bi'ur Halakha tends more to rule according to.

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel:

The objects of a gentile do not acquire a Shabbat residence.

That is, it is obvious that we do not say that it is forbidden to take them beyond their owner's tehum, as we say with regard to the objects of a Jew, since a gentile has no Shabbat residence.

Rather, Shmuel teaches us that the objects do not acquire a Shabbat residence for themselves, such that it would be forbidden to take them outside their own tehum from the place where they spent Shabbat. “Rather, anyone who takes them may lead them as far as he himself may walk, like ownerless objects according to the Rabbis” [Ritva].

And the Rav Hai Gaon wrote: If a Jew borrowed them from a gentile, he may lead them as far as he himself may walk. See Rashi's wording and what is written in the Gaon Yaakov.

And we explain it:

According to whom

[according to whose view] did Shmuel say this?

If we say: according to the Rabbis,

who hold that ownerless objects do not acquire a Shabbat residence, and according to their view Shmuel said that the objects of a gentile likewise do not acquire a Shabbat residence,

that is obvious.

Now, if the Rabbis say that ownerless objects, which have no owners

and could acquire a Shabbat residence for themselves,

do not acquire a Shabbat residence, how much more so the objects of a gentile, which have owners

who have no Shabbat residence, since “ordinary property follows its owners and is no better than they are” [the wording of the Ritva]—why

would it be necessary

to say that they do not acquire a Shabbat residence for themselves?!

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

who holds that ownerless objects acquire a Shabbat residence for themselves—that Shmuel made his statement.

And

this

teaches us

Shmuel:

You might say that Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri said

that objects

acquire a Shabbat residence

for themselves;

that applies only to

ownerless

objects,

since

they have no owners. But the objects of a gentile, which have owners,

follow their owners, who have no Shabbat residence; therefore

they do not

acquire a Shabbat residence for themselves.

The Gemara raises an objection: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says:

One who borrows a utensil from a gentile—

who is a resident of his city, and the utensil spent Shabbat within the tehum of that city—

on a Festival .

Rashi wrote that the utensil spent Shabbat “with the gentile,” apparently indicating that it is not enough for the utensil to acquire a Shabbat residence where it is located; its gentile owner must also have been there. Thus, both conditions are required, and this requires further examination;

And likewise, one who lends a utensil to a gentile

who is a resident of his city,

on the eve of a Festival—

for since it is lent to him, it is like all the gentile's other objects [Ritva]—and it spent Shabbat within the city's tehum,

and he returned it

[the gentile to the Jew]

on the Festival.

And

likewise

the utensils and stores

[that is, stores of utensils] of ownerless property [Tosafot; see Rashi's wording and what Tosafot and the Ritva wrote about it]

that spent Shabbat within the tehum

of the city.

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

they have two thousand cubits in every direction

of the city .

And

likewise,

a gentile who brought produce

into the city

from outside the tehum

of the city: Since the produce acquired a Shabbat residence in its place, it has left its own tehum, and

this

the Jew

may not move from its place

which is its four cubits, like anyone who went outside the tehum, who has only four cubits.

We have therefore learned from this beraita that the objects of a gentile acquire a Shabbat residence. Now this poses a difficulty to Rav Yehuda in the name of Shmuel:

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

this

beraita is in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri

[that is, Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, who said in the beraita that the objects of a gentile acquire a Shabbat residence, said this in accordance with his view, Rashi].

But if you say that Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri holds

also that

the objects of a gentile do not acquire a Shabbat residence,

then

this beraita,

which holds that the objects of a gentile acquire a Shabbat residence,

is in accordance with whom

?

It is in accordance with neither Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri nor the Rabbis,

for both hold that the objects of a gentile do not acquire a Shabbat residence?!

And we answer:

Actually—

as you said—

Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri holds that the objects of a gentile acquire a Shabbat residence,

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

when Shmuel said

that the objects of a gentile do not acquire a Shabbat residence, he did not say it in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri, as we had initially thought; rather,

it is in accordance with the Rabbis

.

And as for what you said,

to object that if Shmuel said it

according to the Rabbis,

then

it is obvious

[for even ownerless objects do not acquire a Shabbat residence, and certainly the objects of a gentile, which have owners]?!

It is not difficult.

For

one might have thought

that the objects of a gentile would acquire a Shabbat residence for themselves where they are, independently of the place of their gentile owners, in accordance with

a rabbinic decree concerning gentile owners, due to Jewish owners,

for just as utensils belonging to Jewish owners have the status of a Shabbat residence, so too should those belonging to a gentile have a Shabbat residence [although this is not entirely analogous, since the Jewish utensil has the Shabbat residence of its owner, whereas here we are considering giving the utensil its own Shabbat residence, independent of its owner's Shabbat residence].

It teaches us

that Shmuel does not issue such a decree, and they do not acquire a Shabbat residence.

And Rav Hiyya bar Avin said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan:

The objects of a gentile acquire a Shabbat residence

for themselves even according to the Rabbis—not as a matter of essential law, but because of

a rabbinic decree concerning gentile owners, due to Jewish owners.

Those rams

[rams, and they belonged to gentiles]

that came

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

to Mavrakhta

[a place name].

Rava permitted the people of

the city

Mehoza

[Rashi wrote that it was near Mavrakhta, within four thousand cubits, and that they came on the Festival by means of an eruv. His intention must be that this is factually so, namely, that Mehoza was farther from Mavrakhta than the tehum of Mehoza; but this is unnecessary for the matter at hand, and everything stated here applies even if Mehoza were closer to Mavrakhta]

to buy from them

the rams and bring them on the Festival to Mehoza, even though the gentiles had brought them from outside the tehum [and thus the rams had left the tehum of their Shabbat residence and were forbidden to be moved beyond their four cubits, Rashi].

Ravina said to Rava: What is your reasoning

for permitting it, even though it is outside the rams' Shabbat-residence tehum?

Is it because

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: The objects of a gentile do not acquire a Shabbat residence?

But,

wherever

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

here too Rabbi Yohanan disagrees with Shmuel, for

Rav Hiyya bar Avin said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: The objects of a gentile acquire a Shabbat residence,

because of

a rabbinic decree concerning gentile owners, due to Jewish owners. Why, then, did you permit it in accordance with Shmuel, where Rabbi Yohanan disagrees with him?!

?!

Rava then said

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

let them be sold

[the rams]

to the people of Mavrakhta,

so that they may be permitted to move them throughout the entire city. Although the rams are outside the tehum of the place where they were at the onset of Shabbat, the people of Mavrakhta may move them.

And this is because

the entire city of Mavrakhta,

since the entire city of Mavrakhta is enclosed by partitions,

with regard

to

their

rams

is like four cubits

alone

it is considered, and the law of the rams is like that of a person who went outside his tehum: Although he may not walk beyond four cubits, if he is in a place enclosed by partitions, he may walk throughout the entire enclosed area, as we learned at the beginning of our chapter according to Rabban Gamliel, whose view is the halakha, and as Rav said above, on page 42 ...

...

Rabbi Hiyya taught:

A reservoir

[a ditch filled with water, Tosafot and the Shulhan Arukh; see also Rashi's wording, which requires explanation]

that

is found

between the Shabbat boundaries

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] .