Eruvin 51a — the Talmud in English

Rava said:

This that is taught in the Mishna, that where he concluded the place and said, “My resting-place is at the base of the tree,” he has acquired [his resting-place there],

is

specifically where

when

if he were

running

[running]

to its base

he would arrive there immediately after he said that he was acquiring a resting-place there,

he would reach

[arrive] there before the onset of Shabbat. Therefore, we consider him as though he were found beneath the tree and had made his eruv with his feet. But if he was so far away that even if he had run he would not have arrived before nightfall, he did not acquire [a resting-place there]. [See the illustration on the following page]

Abaye said to him: But

the one who comes on the road

and “it became dark for him,”

it teaches

in the Mishna, which implies that this is what it says: Since it became dark for him and he cannot reach the base of the tree and make his eruv with his feet, therefore he makes his eruv through speech.

And yet it teaches that he acquired [a resting-place] where he said, “At the base of the tree”?!

And we answer: This that the Mishna says, “It became dark for him,” is not to give a reason why he does not make his eruv with his feet, but to give a reason why he must make an eruv.

And this is what it says: Since

it became dark

for him on Shabbat and he cannot reach

his house

before nightfall, therefore he must make an eruv.

But he can go to the base of the tree,

and therefore he acquired a resting-place there.

There are those who say: Rava said:

In fact, that which the Mishna says, “It became dark,” means

“it became dark for him,”

so that he cannot reach even the base of the tree. But this is specifically

when he proceeds little by little

[walks slowly].

But

if he had been

running,

he would have

reached

the base of the tree before it became dark, and therefore he acquired [a resting-place there].

Rabba and Rav Yosef were going

on the eve of Shabbat

on the road. Rabba said to Rav Yosef: “Let our resting-place be beneath the palm tree that bears its brother”

[beneath the palm tree that bears its brother, that is, another palm tree].

And some say

that Rabba said this: “Let our resting-place be

beneath the palm tree whose owner is freed by it from the tax”

[beneath the palm tree that frees its owner from the tax, that is, it produces many fruits, and its owner pays the tax from their proceeds].

Rav Yosef said

to Rabba:

I do not know it

[I do not know this tree], and I cannot acquire a resting-place there.

Rabba said

to Rav Yosef:

Rely upon me

and entrust your resting-place to me, because I know it, and my resting-place will benefit you as well.

For

that

is taught

[that is, the beraita above],

Rabbi Yosei says: If there were two people

on the road who wish to acquire a resting-place in a certain place by declaration, if

one recognizes

the place

and the other does not recognize it, the one who does not recognize it entrusts his resting-place to the one who recognizes it

and says to him, “My resting-place is with you,”

and the one who recognizes it says: “Let our resting-place be in a certain place,”

and thereby the resting-place is acquired for both of them.

And we say:

And

that which Rabba said to Rav Yosef concerning this beraita in the name of Rabbi Yosei

is not so,

but it was taught without attribution; and

he did not teach it to him in accordance with Rabbi Yosei, but so that he would accept it from him

[so that he would accept it from him],

because Rabbi Yosei’s reasoning accompanies him .

We learned in the Mishna:

If he does not recognize [the place] or is not expert

in the halakha and said, “My resting-place is in my place,” his place acquires for him two thousand cubits in every direction, circular, the statement of Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus:

And we explain:

These two thousand cubits

in every direction that you permit him to walk from his place of resting-place—

where are they written?

That is, where are they hinted at in the Torah, and upon what did the Sages base them, since it is established for us that the laws of boundaries are rabbinic [Ritva]?!

For it is taught:

It is written:

“Remain, each man, beneath him,”

and we expound:

These are four cubits.

For a person’s “beneath him” is four cubits, as we learned above, on page 48; and from here we learn concerning every person who goes outside his boundary, that he is permitted to walk within four cubits [Rashi].

And He added and warned:

“Let no man go out from his place,”

and we expound:

These are two thousand cubits.

And we explain:

From where do we know

to interpret the verse, “Let no man go out from his place,” as permitting walking for two thousand cubits?!

Rav Hisda said: We learned

by means of a gezera shava

“place”

[“Let no man go out from his “place”]

from “place,”

as it is written concerning an unintentional murderer who is exiled to the cities of refuge: “I shall designate for you a ‘place’ to which he shall flee.”

And

we learned

“place”

from “fleeing.”

For by the force of the gezera shava we interpret it as though the expression “fleeing” [“he shall flee”] were also written in the verse “Let no man go out from his place.”

And

we again derive

“fleeing”

[which is, as it were, stated—by force of the gezera shava—in the verse concerning boundaries] by means of the gezera shava

from “fleeing,”

which was mentioned in another verse, as it is written: “From the boundary of his city of refuge to which he shall flee.”

And “fleeing” from “boundary,”

for by force of the gezera shava we interpret it as though the expression “boundary” had also been written in the verse “Let no man go out from his place,” just as it is written: “From the boundary of his city of refuge to which he shall flee there.”

And

we again derive by means of a gezera shava

boundary from boundary.

As it says: “And the blood-avenger finds him outside the ‘boundary’ of his city of refuge”—to make the expression “outside,” stated in that verse, as though it were also written in the verse concerning boundaries.

And

we again derive the measure of two thousand cubits by means of a gezera shava:

“outside” from “outside,” as it is written

concerning the cities of the Levites:

“And you shall measure from ‘outside’ the city the eastern side, two thousand cubits.”

To teach: also concerning boundaries, in which “outside” is stated [by force of the teachings mentioned], the measure of this “outside” is two thousand cubits.

Thus we have learned that it is forbidden to go outside two thousand cubits.

And we challenge: Why do you derive the gezera shava of “outside, outside” from this verse?

Let us derive

from another verse [stated concerning the commandment to leave an open space around the cities of the Levites], as it is written: “And you shall measure

from the city wall and outward—

one thousand cubits,”

and say that the Shabbat boundary too is only one thousand cubits?!

And we answer: It is true that they

derive

by means of a gezera shava only

“outside,”

as it is said concerning the blood-avenger: “outside” the boundary,

from “outside,”

as it is said: “from ‘outside’ the city, the eastern side, two thousand cubits.”

And they do not derive

by means of a gezera shava

“outside,”

which is stated concerning the blood-avenger,

from “outward,”

which is stated concerning the open space of the cities of the Levites: “and outward, one thousand cubits.”

And we wonder:

And what difference is there

between “outside” and “outward”?

And

yet

we find that

the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael

derives by means of a gezera shava even in a matter in which the expressions are not identical, but only similar in their meaning:

For he expounded by means of a gezera shava

“And the koen shall return,” “And the koen shall come.”

Since the meanings of the two verses are equal,

this is returning and this is coming,

although the expressions of the verses are not identical.

Here too, one should derive by means of a gezera shava “outside” from “outward,” since their meanings are equal .

And if so, it is difficult: let us derive “outside” from “outward,” and say that the measure of the Shabbat boundary is one thousand cubits, as in the open spaces of the cities of the Levites; and from where do we know to derive “outside” from “outside,” that the Shabbat boundary is two thousand cubits?!

And we answer:

These words

—that we pay attention only to the meanings being equal—apply

where there is nothing similar to it

also in the wording of the verse.

But where there is something similar to it,

[when there is an expression similar to it], as here, where one can derive “outside” from “outside” and not “outside” from “outward,”

from

the verse that

is similar to it

both in meaning and in wording

we derive.

We learned in the Mishna: “His place acquired for him”

two thousand cubits

in every direction,

circular, the statement of Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus; but the Sages say: square, like a square tablet, so that he gains the corners.

And we wonder:

But Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus, whichever way you look at it

[what does he hold]?

If he has a gezera shava

—by which we learned above the measure of two thousand cubits for the Shabbat boundary—from that which is written concerning the boundary of the cities of the Levites, “And you shall measure from outside the city the eastern side, two thousand cubits,” there

“sides” is written

[“the eastern side”], and “side” implies a square.

And

if he does not have

this

gezerah shavah—

two thousand cubits

of the Shabbat boundary

—

from where does he derive it?

And we answer:

In fact, he has

this

gezera shava

for two thousand cubits.

And

the fact that he does not also derive that they should be square is because

it is different here,

in the cities of the Levites,

for the verse says

an expression of limitation:

“This shall be for you the open spaces of the cities.”

And we expound from the limitation “this”—specifically

for “this,”

for the boundary of the cities of the Levites,

you give sides

that are square,

but you do not give sides

that are square

to those resting on Shabbat.

And we challenge:

But the Rabbis,

who give two thousand cubits as square, do they not have a limitation of “this” in the boundary of the cities of the Levites?!

And we answer:

Teach it thus: Rav Hanania says:

The word “this” does not come to limit; rather, we expound from it:

“Like this shall be all those who rest on Shabbat!”

That is, the two thousand cubits of the Shabbat boundary too shall be square.

Rabbi Aha bar Yaakov said: One who carries four cubits in the public domain—

is not liable until he carries both them

[the four cubits]

and their diagonal.

That is, he must carry the measure of the diagonal of a square tablet of four by four cubits, namely, five cubits and three fifths of a cubit [for along the diagonal, two fifths of a cubit are added for each cubit, and for four cubits eight fifths of a cubit are added].

And this law is learned from the exposition stated above concerning the boundary of the cities of the Levites, “Like this shall be all those who rest on Shabbat,” to give them sides.

And since “sides” is not applicable to carrying four cubits, for it is not a defined area concerning which we can say that the Torah said that the area should be square, therefore we expound the gezera shava, which comes to say that he is not liable until he carries both them and their diagonal .

Rav Pappa said: Rava tested us

[he tried us] and asked us:

Does an

upright pillar

located

in the public domain, ten handbreadths high

and

four handbreadths wide

handbreadths [which is the measure of a private domain]—in order to judge it as a private domain,

must

those four handbreadths also be present,

both

[the four handbreadths]

and

also

their diagonal,

the diagonal of the four handbreadths?

That is, must the pillar be square at its top and have the measure of the diagonal?

Or

perhaps

not

do we require that it have a diagonal, and even a round pillar whose width [diameter] is four handbreadths is likewise a private domain .

And we said to him

Rava: Is this

not the same as Rav Hanania’s

statement above?

For it is taught: Rav Hanania says: Like this

sides

shall be all those who rest on Shabbat.

And since this is so, the pillar too must be square in order to be a private domain.

We learned in the Mishna:

“And this is what they said: A poor person makes his eruv with his feet.”

Rabbi Meir said: We have only a poor person

Rabbi Yehuda says: Whether a poor person or a wealthy person; they said that one makes an eruv with bread only to make it easier for the wealthy person, so that he need not go out and make his eruv with his feet:

Rav Nahman said:

The dispute

between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda is concerning one who makes his eruv literally with his feet and says: “My resting-place is

in my place.”

That is, Rabbi Meir, who permitted making an eruv without bread only for a poor person [or for one who comes on the road, who is also considered poor], applies even to one who makes his eruv literally with his feet and says, “My resting-place is in my place.”

Whereas Rabbi Yehuda, who made it easier to make an eruv without bread even for a wealthy person, refers only to one who makes his eruv literally with his feet [Rashi below, s.v. “A beraita in accordance with Rav Nahman”].

And this is the basis of their dispute:

For Rabbi Meir holds that the principal form of an eruv

is

with bread

[that is, the principal rabbinic eruv was with bread, because it appears more clearly as acquiring a resting-place there, Ritva],

but to make an eruv without bread—whether he makes it with his feet and says, “My resting-place is in my place,” and all the more so if he does not make it with his feet, but knew of a tree or a fence and says, “My resting-place is beneath it”—is a leniency.