Eruvin 50b — the Talmud in English

. And Rabbi Yohanan

Rabbi Yohanan

held:

The reason he set aside eighty was that

he intended a large offering; he wanted all eighty to become consecrated. But that is impossible. Nor did forty of them become consecrated, because anything that cannot take effect one after another cannot take effect all at once either.

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, Rabbah’s statement is not contradicted by the words of Ḥizkiya, since only forty out of the eighty became consecrated. This is similar to one who said: “Let me acquire my place of residence through four cubits out of eight,” regarding whom it was explained above that he acquired a place of residence.

Abaye said:

With regard to Rav’s statement—that if one says, “My place of residence is beneath the tree,” but does not specify and precisely define which four cubits beneath the tree are his place of residence, he does not acquire a place of residence beneath the tree [as Rabbah explained Rav’s statement: this is because he did not specify the 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.

This is because the location of his place of residence cannot be identified at all. 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 either side. Therefore, he does not acquire a place of residence at all.

But with regard to a tree whose area beneath it is less than twelve cubits,

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

part of his place

—that is, the location of his place of residence—

can be identified.

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

If the diameter of the circle surrounding the tree is less than twelve cubits, then in any event we can say that part of the four-cubit place of residence is certainly located within the four central cubits.

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

And if his place of residence was established in 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. For after subtracting the four central cubits, there will not remain four complete cubits on each side, since the total area is less than twelve cubits.

It follows that some of the four central cubits must necessarily be included in his place of residence [and this is sufficient for Abaye to regard it as though part of his place of residence were identifiable].

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.

Since part of his place of residence can be identified, this is sufficient for it to be regarded as though he specified and defined his place of residence.

Nevertheless, since ultimately it is not known where his place of residence is, he is subject to the uncertainty of one who is like a donkey driver: he must follow the stricter limitation in either direction.

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, challenged this:

cubits—

how do you know that he specifies

the location of his place of residence in the four central cubits?

Perhaps he specifies it in the four

outer

cubits on this side,

the side here;

or

perhaps

in the four

outer

cubits on this side,

the side opposite,

he specifies

the location of his place of residence.

In other words, how do you know that his place of residence is the four central cubits of the tree?

Perhaps it is the four cubits on this side of the tree, and perhaps it is the four cubits on the other side of the tree?!

Therefore, the half-cubit located in the center [in a location that has not been specified] cannot be counted, by virtue of the “in any event” argument, as though part of his place were identifiable within the four central cubits!

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

If part of his place can be clearly identified, he acquires a place of residence even though his entire place cannot be identified.

Therefore:

They taught this only with regard to a tree whose area beneath it is

at least

eight cubits,

since it is uncertain which four cubits he acquired, and not even part of his place can be identified.

But with regard to a tree whose area beneath it is seven cubits—

part of his place can be identified,

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

It is sufficient that part of his location can be identified for it to be regarded as though he specified 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 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,”

the tree or the fence—

his statement has no effect.

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, who holds that he has no place of residence at all].

But if he said: “My place of residence is in that particular place,”

which is enclosed by partitions [as the baraita explains in its latter clause], then although the area is larger than four cubits, it is treated in its entirety as four cubits, and he acquires a place of residence. He need not specify and define his place of residence, because the entire area 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 two thousand cubits beyond it,

because this is the law of the Shabbat limit: measurement begins from the boundary of his place of residence.

When is this statement said

—that he may walk throughout his entire place of residence even if it is larger than four cubits? It applies when he acquired his place of residence

in a defined place

—one that is distinct and separated from its surroundings.

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

whose width

was from four cubits up to two seahs,

it is considered as though he were resting in an area enclosed by partitions [because the place is ten handbreadths high, and we apply the principle that the partitions are regarded as extending upward; if it is larger than two seahs, then by rabbinic law it is treated as though it were not enclosed by partitions, since these partitions were not made for residential use].

Likewise,

if his place of residence was in

a valley that was ten

handbreadths deep

and

its area

was from four cubits up to two seahs,

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

But

if he acquired a place of residence

in an undefined place

—one without partitions, or even one with partitions if it is larger than two seahs—

he has only four cubits

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

There were two

people traveling, who 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,

while the other did not recognize one.

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

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

And the one who recognized a place said: “My place of residence is in that particular place,”

and thereby the place of residence was acquired also by the one who did not recognize a place.

When is this statement said [that in an area not enclosed by partitions he acquires a place of residence, walks to that place, and from there has two thousand cubits in every direction]?—

[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 designated.

For example, he said: “Next to that particular stone.”

But

if

he did not specify the four cubits he designated

as his place of residence, then

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

[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.

The fact that the baraita teaches, “He may not move from his location,” proves that the law is in accordance with Rav. For according to Shmuel, he acquires a place of residence even when he does not specify its location; why, then, may he not move from his location?

[Rashi explained it this way. Apparently, the first clause of the baraita also proves that the law is in accordance with Rav, since it implies that if the place is not defined, he may not walk until he reaches that place.]

We ask:

Should we say that

this

baraita is a conclusive refutation of Shmuel?!

And we answer:

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

[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 location and two thousand cubits of the limit], while the tree’s branches spread in every direction.

Since he did not specify which place beneath the tree he wished to designate as his place of residence, even according to Shmuel he may not move from his location, because

if you establish him

with his place of residence

on the other side of the tree

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

the place where he now stands is

located

outside

the

limit.

Since we are concerned about this possibility [for 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 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 he may not move beyond his four cubits. [See the illustration on the previous page.]

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

that one acquires a place of residence even when its location is not clear and defined:

For it was taught:

If one erred and placed an eruv for two directions,

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

he thought

that the law was

that one may place an eruv

and thereby be permitted

to

walk

in two directions.

Or if he said to his servants: “Go out and place an eruv for me,”

without telling them in which direction,

one

of his servants

placed an eruv for him

and put the eruv

to the north

of his home,

and another placed an eruv for him

and put the eruv

to the south

of his home.

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

Therefore:

He may walk to the

side

north

of his home only

to the extent

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

to the extent

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 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 his eruv on the north and his home is the end of his limit measured from the north. Nor may he walk north, lest he acquired his eruv on the south and his home is the end of his limit measured from the south.

The first clause of this baraita proves that the law is in accordance with Shmuel: one who places an eruv without specifying its location acquires a place of residence as a matter of uncertainty.

For according to Rav, since it is not known 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 his home, since he redirected his intention and thoughts away from his home. Even if his home was not centered between the two limits, he would be forbidden to move from his location.

And we raise an objection:

Should we say that

this

baraita is a conclusive refutation of Rav?!

And we answer:

Rav

was a tanna,

and therefore had the authority to disagree even with tannaim;

and he disagrees

with the tanna of this baraita.

We learned in the Mishna:

If he said, “My place of residence is at its base,” he may walk from the place where he is standing to its base two thousand cubits, and from its base to his home two thousand cubits. It follows that from when darkness fell he may walk four thousand cubits.