Eruvin 49b — the Talmud in English

c.

And a minor

—whether he can be made an agent to place an eruv of courtyards on his behalf. For if the eruv is because of acquisition, the minor is not capable of acquisition. But if the eruv is because of dwelling, the minor does nothing, for the bread itself, which is placed in the house, makes the entire courtyard one domain.

Abaye said to Rabba:

According to you

who say that the eruv is because of dwelling—

it is difficult

from the beraita that we will bring shortly!

And for Shmuel

who says that the eruv is because of acquisition—it is also

difficult!

But it was taught:

Five who collected their eruv

in their shared courtyard,

when they are taking their eruv to another place, one takes it on behalf of [Rashi]

all of them.

all of them.

That is:

a. If they wished to make an eruv with another courtyard, in order to permit carrying from this one to that one, they place that eruv which they collected in the other courtyard, and through this they are all joined in an eruv.

b. If one of the members of the courtyard wished, he places his own eruv in the other courtyard, and it is effective to make an eruv for all the other members of the courtyard, since once he has already made an eruv with his fellows, he acquires for the sake of all of them. [This was explained according to the meaning of Rashi; and it appears from his words that he read the beraita differently].

And from the latter law of the beraita it is difficult for Shmuel:

It is he himself who acquires, and furthermore—

the other members of the courtyard—

did not

acquire, so how were they joined in an eruv?!

And it is difficult according to you:

It is he himself who dwells, and no more?!

He said to him,

Rabba:

It is not difficult according to me! And it is not difficult for Shmuel!

For this is why the eruv of this one alone is effective, because

he acts as the agent of all of them.

And we return to the dispute between Rabbi Shimon and the Sages in our Mishna, and we say:

Rabba said that Rav Hama bar Gurya said that Rav said:

The halakha is according to Rabbi Shimon,

who said: The outer ones are permitted with the middle one, and the middle one is permitted with the outer ones!

Mishna:

One who was coming on the road

on the eve of Shabbat,

and

sees that shortly

it will become dark for him

and Shabbat will enter, and he wishes to walk on foot on Shabbat to his home,

and he recognized a tree or a fence

—which are located at a distance of less than two thousand cubits from his place, and from the tree or the fence it is less than two thousand cubits to reach his home—

and said: “My place of residence is beneath it”

of this tree or fence—and he did not leave bread there—

he has said nothing,

since he did not define and conclude at which place beneath the tree he wishes to acquire his place of residence. And in the Gemara the amoraim dispute the reason for this law.

But if he concluded and defined, for example, if he said:

“My place of residence is at its base”

of the tree [at the place where it emerges from the ground], he acquires his place of residence at the base of the tree, and

he walks from the place of his feet to its base

of the tree

two thousand cubits.

And from its base

of the tree

to his home

he walks another

two thousand cubits,

for his place of residence is at the base of the tree, and he is permitted to walk from there in every direction two thousand cubits.

It follows that after it became dark he walks four thousand cubits.

If he does not recognize

a tree or a fence

or is not expert in the halakha

to know that it is effective to acquire a place of residence in such a manner,

and he said

“My place of residence—

is in my place,” his place has benefited him,

and he acquired a place of residence there .

And he is permitted to walk from there

two thousand cubits in every direction, circularly.

That is: He is permitted to walk within a circle whose center is the place where he acquired his place of residence and whose diameter is four thousand cubits,

the words of Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus.

And the Sages say: Square, like a square tablet

whose length and width are four thousand cubits,

so that he will gain at the corners.

For he is permitted to walk from the center of the tablet [where he acquired his place of residence] to the end of the corner at the angle of the square, which is a distance of more than two thousand cubits, and it follows that he gains the corner at the angle.

And this is what they said: “The poor person” [not specifically a poor person, but also this one who came on the road is a poor person],

establishes an eruv with his feet.

makes an eruv with his feet.

That is: It is a leniency with which we are lenient for the poor person, that he makes an eruv without bread, even though this is not the principal eruv [according to Rashi in the Gemara].

And it will be explained in the Gemara whether this clause refers to one who makes an eruv literally with his feet and says, “My place of residence is in my place,” or to one who recognized a tree or fence and says, “My place of residence is beneath it” .

Rabbi Meir said [he does not come to disagree with the first tanna, according to the Gemara and Rashi there]:

for permitting an eruv to be established in this manner

We have no

leniency to make an eruv in this manner

except

if he is

poor [whether he is literally poor or whether he came on the road], but a wealthy person may not.

And

Rabbi Judah says: Both a poor person and a wealthy person

can make an eruv in this manner.

And

the Sages said

that

one makes an eruv with bread only

in order

to make it easier for the wealthy person

who sits in his house

not to leave

and trouble himself

and make an eruv with his feet,

but rather to send his bread by means of an agent, and not in order to be stringent, so that a person should be unable to make an eruv without bread.

And it will be explained in the Gemara whether their dispute concerns one who says, “My place of residence is in my place,” or one who recognizes a tree and says, “My place of residence is beneath it.”

Gemara:

And we raise an objection concerning it:

What

is the meaning of the Mishna, that one who says, “My place of residence is beneath the tree”—

“has said nothing”?

Rav said: He has said nothing at all!

That is: He has no place of residence beneath the tree whatsoever [for the reason that will be explained shortly in the Gemara]; and not only that, but even in the place where he is located he does not acquire a place of residence, as he would acquire if he did not wish to acquire a place of residence in another place.

And the reason is: because he uprooted his mind and his heart from the place where he spent Shabbat.

And

it follows that

even to beneath the tree

located within two thousand cubits

he is unable to go,

for he did not acquire a place of residence at all, and he may not move from his four cubits.

And

if

Shmuel said:

He acquired a place of residence beneath the tree.

And the reason that he is not permitted to walk to his home is that he did not define a specific place beneath the tree, and it follows that the entire place beneath the tree is a “place of residence in doubt.” And from the wording of the Mishna, “And from its base to his home, two thousand cubits,” it appears that specifically from its base there are two thousand cubits, but from the edge of the tree’s branches [on its side distant from his home] there are more than two thousand cubits.

And since it is possible that he acquired a place of residence beneath the branches on the side distant from his home, he cannot walk to his home, which is farther than two thousand cubits from his place of residence.

And therefore, what they said in the Mishna,

“has said nothing,”

means specifically that he cannot walk

to his home

as was explained,

but to beneath the

entire

tree

he

is able to go, if all the branches of the tree are within two thousand cubits of the place where he is located. For according to Shmuel’s opinion, he acquired a place of residence at some place beneath the tree [only we do not know where he acquired his place of residence].

and the northern edge of the tree's branches ends exactly two thousand cubits from the place where he is now standing, on the tree's southern side,

And

since there is uncertainty as to where his place of residence beneath the tree is,

beneath the tree

becomes like

“a donkey—

a camel” [it is a metaphor for a person leading a donkey and a camel: the donkey walks before him and the person leads it, while the camel is behind him and the person pulls it, and he must turn both before him and behind him].

For the uncertainty as to where his place of residence beneath the tree is pulls him both before him and behind him.

How so? If his home is to the north of the tree, while the place where he is now standing is to the south of the tree.

And the width of the tree’s branches is thirty cubits.

And the northern end of the tree’s branches ends at a distance of two thousand cubits from the place where he is now standing on its southern side.

But on the side toward his home, the entire width of the tree was not within two thousand cubits; rather, only from the northern side of the tree’s branches to his home was two thousand cubits, whereas from the southern side of the tree to his home was more than two thousand cubits.

Thus, if he

comes to measure

the two thousand cubits from the tree toward his home

from the south [That is, he wishes to maintain that he acquired his Shabbat residence on the tree's southern side, which is closer to his present location, and to measure his Shabbat limit from there], and he says that he is now standing at a distance of two thousand cubits less thirty cubits from his place of residence—the width of the tree's branches [for the entire tree lies within a distance of two thousand cubits]—and therefore he may walk thirty cubits from his location in the opposite direction, facing the tree,

from the north [that is: he wishes to argue that he acquired his place of residence on the northern side of the tree, which is nearer to his home, and to measure the Shabbat limit from there] and enter his home—

as a stringency

they measure for him

the two thousand cubits

from

the side of the tree

that is south,

which is farther than two thousand cubits from his home, and he is forbidden to enter.

For we rule stringently, in case he acquired a place of residence on the southern side of the tree.

And conversely, if he

comes to measure—

the two thousand cubits that he has from his place of residence beneath the tree toward the place where he is now standing—

from the south [that is: he wishes to argue that he acquired his place of residence on the southern side of the tree, nearer to the place where he is standing, and to measure the Shabbat limit from there], and he comes to say that he is now standing at a distance of two thousand cubits less thirty cubits from his place of residence, which is the measure of the width of the tree’s branches [for the entire tree is standing within a measure of two thousand cubits], and since this is so, he can walk thirty cubits from his place toward the opposite side, facing the tree—

to est' khochet schitat', chto priobrel mesto prebyvaniya v Shabat s yuzhnoi storony dereva, blizkoi k mestu, gde on stoit, i izmerit' otтуда predel Shabata; i utverzhdaet, chto seichas stoit na rasstoyanii v dve tysyachi ama minus tridtsat' ama ot mesta ego prebyvaniya v Shabat, to est' na razmer shiriny krony dereva [ved' vse derevo nakhoditsya v predelakh dvukh tysyach ama], a poetomu mozhet proiti tridtsat' ama ot svoego mesta v protivopolozhnuyu storonu, naprотив dereva, —

they measure for him

stringently

from

the edge of the branches

that is north,

which is exactly two thousand cubits distant from him.

Because we say that perhaps he acquired a place of residence there, and since this is so, he may walk only to the tree, and not even one step toward the side opposite the tree.