Eruvin 50b (נ:) — the Talmud in English

And

Rabbi Yohanan

holds:

the reason he designated eighty is that

he intended a large offering;

he wanted all eighty to become consecrated. But this is impossible. Nor did forty of them become consecrated, because anything that cannot take effect sequentially cannot take effect simultaneously either.

Accordingly, Rabba is not contradicted by the statement of Hezekiah, since only forty of the eighty became consecrated. This is comparable to one who said, “Let my Shabbat limit be acquired for me within four cubits out of eight,” regarding which it was explained above that he acquired his place of residence.

Abaye said:

With regard to Rav’s statement that one who says, “My place of residence is beneath the tree,” but does not specify and precisely define where beneath the tree he acquires his four-cubit place of residence, has not acquired a place of residence beneath the tree [as Rabba explained Rav’s statement, namely, because he did not specify its location]:

They taught

that he acquires no place of residence at all

only with regard to a tree

whose area

beneath it

is at least

twelve cubits.

Since the location of his place of residence is not discernible at all, for we divide the area into four central cubits and four outer cubits on each side, surrounding them.

Thus, we are uncertain whether his place of residence is the four central cubits or the four outer cubits on each side surrounding them; therefore, he does not acquire a place of residence at all.

But with regard to a tree beneath which there are fewer than twelve cubits,

he acquires a place of residence beneath the tree, even though he did not specify its location, because

part of his residence

[that is, part of his place of residence]

is discernible.

For whenever one acquires a place of residence beneath a tree without specifying the location beneath the tree, we can divide the area of the tree into four central cubits and four outer cubits on each side.

And if the diameter of the circle surrounding the tree is less than twelve cubits, we must say, whichever way one looks at it, that part of the four-cubit place of residence is certainly located within the four central cubits of the tree.

For if the place of residence was established as the four central cubits, then his entire “residence” is located in the center.

And if his place of residence was established as the four outer cubits, it is clear that part of those four outer cubits is also included within the area of the four central cubits, since after subtracting the four central cubits, four complete cubits do not remain on each side, as the total area is less than twelve cubits.

It follows that, inevitably, part of the four central cubits is included in his place of residence [and this is sufficient for Abaye for it to be considered as though part of his place of residence were discernible].

For if he acquired a place of residence in the four eastern cubits, half a cubit of those four eastern cubits is included among the central cubits; and likewise, if he acquired a place of residence in the four western cubits.

And all the more so if he acquired a place of residence in the four cubits at the tree’s trunk.

And since part of his place of residence is discernible, this suffices for it to be considered as though he specified and defined the location of his place of residence.

However, since ultimately the precise location of his place of residence is unknown, he is like a donkey-driver: he may proceed only in the direction permitted by both possible locations.

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, challenged this: From where

do you know that he specifies his place of residence

in the four middle

cubits?

Perhaps in the four

outer cubits

on this side

of the tree,

or

perhaps

in the four

outer cubits

on this side

of the opposite side of the tree, he

specifies

his place of residence.

That is, from where do you know that his place of residence is the four middle cubits of the tree?

It is possible that it is the four cubits on this side of the tree, and it is also possible that it is the four cubits on the other side of the tree?!

Therefore, the half-cubit located in the center [in a location that is not defined] cannot be considered, by virtue of the “whichever way one looks at it” argument, as though part of his residence is discernible within the four central cubits!

Rather, Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said:

If “part of his residence is discernible” explicitly, he acquires a place of residence properly, even though “all of his residence” is not discernible.

Accordingly:

They taught this only with regard to a tree beneath which there are

at least

eight cubits,

for it is possible to doubt which four cubits he acquired, and even part of his residence is not discernible.

But with regard to a tree beneath which there are seven cubits—

part of his residence is discernible,

since the middle cubit is certainly part of his place of residence, whether he acquired the four eastern cubits or the four western cubits.

This is sufficient for part of his place to be discernible, so that it is considered as though he specified the location of his place of residence.

And now we return to the dispute between Rav and Shmuel at the beginning of the discussion:

A baraita was taught in accordance with the opinion of Rav

that when one does not specify the location of his place of residence, he does not acquire a place of residence beneath the tree, and even at the place where he is standing he has no place of residence and may not move from his location;

a baraita was taught in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel

that he acquires a place of residence even though he did not specify its location.

A baraita was taught in accordance with the opinion of Rav:

One who was traveling

on the eve of Shabbat

and darkness fell upon him, and he recognized a tree or a fence

located less than two thousand cubits from him,

and said: My place of residence is beneath it

that is, beneath the tree or beside the fence—

he has said nothing.

He may not walk even to beneath the tree, since he did not specify four cubits beneath the tree as the location of his place of residence [in accordance with Rav, that he has no place of residence at all].

But if he said: My place of residence is in a particular place

that is enclosed by partitions [as the baraita explains in its latter clause], then, although the place is larger than four cubits, it is considered in its entirety as four cubits, and he acquires a place of residence. He need not specify and define the location of his place of residence, since the entire place is his place of residence; therefore:

He may walk until he reaches that place.

Once he reaches that place, he may walk throughout it

even if it is larger than four cubits,

and beyond it for two thousand cubits,

as this is the law of the Shabbat limit, which is measured beginning from the boundary of his place of residence.

When are these matters stated

[that he may walk throughout his entire place of residence even if it is larger than four cubits]? With regard to one who acquires his place of residence

in a defined place

[a place distinct and set apart from its surroundings].

For example, if he spent Shabbat on a mound that is ten handbreadths high and

whose width

is from four cubits up to two seah—

it is considered as though he is residing in a place enclosed by partitions [since the place is ten handbreadths high, and we apply the principle “extend and raise the partitions”; but if it is larger than two seah, by rabbinic law it is considered not to be enclosed by partitions, since these partitions were not made for residential purposes].

And likewise,

if his place of residence is in a

valley that is ten

handbreadths deep

and

whose area

is from four cubits up to two seah,

since the valley is enclosed by partitions, we consider the entire valley to be the place of the one who is residing there.

But

if he acquired a place of residence

in an undefined place

[one without partitions; or even one with partitions, if the place is larger than two seah],

he has only four cubits

within which he may walk, in addition to the two thousand cubits, and from there he may walk in every direction for two thousand cubits [for example, when he specified four cubits within that place as the location of his place of residence, as the baraita proceeds to explain].

There were two

people traveling, and they wished to acquire a place of residence at the end of two thousand cubits from where they were standing.

One

of

them recognized

a tree or a fence between his location and his home, where he could acquire a place of residence,

and one did not recognize one.

The one who did not recognize one entrusted his place of residence to the one who recognized one,

saying to him: “My place of residence is with you” [Rashi below].

And the one who recognized one says: My place of residence is in a particular place,

and by this means the place of residence is acquired also for the one who did not recognize one.

When are these matters stated

[that in a place not enclosed by partitions he acquires a place of residence, walks to that place, and from there has two thousand cubits in every direction]?

When he specified the four cubits he established,

for example, when he said: “Beside that particular stone.”

But

if

he did not specify the four cubits he established

as the location of his place of residence, then

he may not move from his location

[from his four cubits, which are his place]. Since he did not wish to acquire a place of residence where he is now standing, and he likewise did not acquire one in the place where he wished to acquire it, because he did not specify it.

And since the baraita teaches, “He may not move from his location,” this proves that it follows Rav’s opinion. For according to Shmuel, he acquired a place of residence even if he did not specify its location; why, then, may he not move from his location?

[So Rashi explains it; and apparently the first clause of the baraita also proves Rav’s opinion, since it implies that if it is not a defined place, he may not walk until he reaches that place.]

We raise an objection:

Shall we say that

this

is a refutation of Shmuel?!

And we answer:

Shmuel could say to you: With what are we dealing here? With a case in which, from the place where he is standing to the base of

[the trunk of] the tree, there is a distance of

two thousand and four cubits

[the greatest distance one may walk on Shabbat: four cubits of his place and two thousand cubits of the limit], and the tree’s branches extend in all directions.

And since he did not specify where beneath the tree he wished to reside, he may not move from his location even according to Shmuel, since

if you establish him

in his place of residence

on the other side of the tree

[if he acquired a place of residence on the far side of the tree, distant from the place where he is standing],

his location is

the place where he is currently standing

outside

the

limit.

And since we are concerned about this possibility [as according to Shmuel it is uncertain where he acquired his place of residence], we say:

If he specified four cubits

located within this distance,

he can walk

[he is able to walk] from his location to his place of residence beneath the tree,

but if not,

if he did not specify which four cubits,

he cannot walk

[he is unable to walk] at all, and may not move from his location, since it is possible that he is standing outside his limit and may not move beyond his four cubits. [See the diagram on the previous page]

A baraita was taught in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel,

that he acquires a place of residence even when the location of his place of residence is neither clear nor defined:

As it was taught:

One who erred and established an eruv for two directions,

placing one eruv south of his home and a second eruv north of his home, because

he thought

that this was the law,

that one establishes an eruv

and thereby permits

him

to walk

in two directions.

Or one who said to his servants: Go out and establish an eruv for me,

without telling them in which direction.

One

of his servants

established an eruv for him

and placed the eruv

to the north

of his home,

and another established an eruv for him

and placed the eruv

to the south

of his home.

It follows that he is uncertain whether he acquired a place of residence in the north or in the south.

Therefore:

He may walk to the

side of his home

to the north

only

the

distance permitted to him by

his eruv

that is

to the south

of his home, since it is possible that he acquired his place of residence in the south.

And

likewise,

he may walk to the south

of his home only

the

distance permitted to him by

his eruv

that is

to the north

of his home, since it is possible that he acquired his place of residence in the north.

And if his servants centered

for

him

[on his behalf]

the limit,

placing the eruv to the north at a distance of two thousand cubits from his home, and likewise placing the eruv to the south two thousand cubits from his home, so that his home was centered between the two limits—

he may not move from his location

[from his home], because of the uncertainty.

He may not walk south, lest he acquired the eruv on the north and his home is the end of his limit measured from the north; and likewise he may not walk north, lest he acquired the eruv on the south and his home is the end of his limit measured from the south.

The first clause of this baraita thus proves Shmuel’s opinion: one who acquires an eruv without specifying its location acquires one as a matter of uncertainty.

For according to Rav, since it is unknown where his place of residence is, he does not acquire a place of residence at all at the location where the eruvs were placed; nor does he have a place of residence at home, since he redirected his intention and mind away from his home. Even if his home were not centered between the two limits, he would be prohibited from moving from his location.

We raise an objection:

Shall we say that

this baraita

is a refutation of Rav?!

And we answer:

Rav

is a tanna,

and he has the authority to dispute even tannaim;

and he disputes

the tanna of this baraita.

We learned in the Mishna:

If one said, “My place of residence is at its base,” he may walk two thousand cubits from the place where he is standing to its base, and two thousand cubits from its base to his home; it follows that from nightfall he may walk four thousand cubits.