Eruvin 51a (נא.) — the Talmud in English

Rava said:

The statement in the Mishna that when he specified a place and said, “My residence is at the base of the tree,” he acquires residence there

applies

only when

when

if he had been

running

[running]

to the base

of the tree immediately after he said that he was acquiring residence there, he would have

arrived

[reached] there before the onset of Shabbat. Therefore, we consider him as though he were located beneath the tree and had established his eruv through his feet. But if he was so far away that even had he run he would not have arrived before nightfall, he did not acquire residence there. [See the illustration on the following page]

Abaye said to him: But

the one who was traveling

and “darkness fell upon him”

it teaches

in the Mishna, which indicates that this is what it means: Since darkness fell upon him and he cannot reach the base of the tree and establish his eruv through his feet, he therefore establishes his eruv verbally.

Yet it teaches that he acquires residence when he said that his residence was at the base of the tree?!

And we answer: When the Mishna says, “darkness fell upon him,” this is not to explain why he cannot establish his eruv through his feet; rather, it explains why he must establish an eruv.

And this is what it means: Since

darkness

fell upon him on the eve of Shabbat and he cannot reach

his house

before nightfall, he must therefore establish an eruv.

But he can go to the base of the tree,

and therefore he acquired residence there.

Some say: Rava said:

Actually, when the Mishna says “darkness,” it means

“darkness fell upon him,”

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

when he walks little by little

[he walks slowly].

But

if he had

run,

he would have

arrived

at the base of the tree before nightfall, and therefore he acquired residence there.

Rabba and Rav Yosef were traveling

on the eve of Shabbat

along the road. Rabba said to Rav Yosef: Let our residence be beneath the date palm that bears its brother

[beneath the date palm that bears the one beside it, meaning another date palm].

And some say

that Rabba said as follows: Let our residence be

beneath the date palm whose owner is released from the tax

[beneath the date palm that frees its owner from the tax, meaning one that produces many fruits, so that its owner pays the tax from their proceeds].

Rav Yosef said

to Rabba:

I do not know it

[I do not recognize this tree], and I cannot acquire residence there.

Rabba said

to Rav Yosef:

Rely on me

and entrust your residence to me, since I recognize it, and my residence will also be effective for you.

For

this is

what is taught

[the earlier beraita]:

Rabbi Yosei says: If there were two people

traveling who wish to acquire residence by verbal declaration at a particular place, if

one recognizes

the place

and the other does not recognize it, the one who does not recognize it entrusts his residence to the one who does recognize it

and says to him: “My residence is with you,”

and the one who recognizes it says: Let our residence be at the particular place

and residence is thereby acquired for both of them.

And we say:

But

when Rabba cited this beraita to Rav Yosef in the name of Rabbi Yosei,

that is not so;

rather, it was taught anonymously. And

he did not teach it to him as the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, but only 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 familiar with the halakha

and said, “My residence is in my place,” his place acquires for him two thousand cubits in every direction, circularly; this is the statement of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus.

And we explain:

These two thousand cubits

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

where are they written?

That is, where are they hinted at in the Torah, and upon what did the Sages base them, given that we hold that the laws of teḥumim are rabbinic [Ritva]?!

As it is taught:

It is written:

“Remain, every man, beneath him,”

and we expound:

This refers to four cubits.

A person’s “beneath him” is four cubits, as we learned above, on page 48. From here we learn that anyone who goes beyond his teḥum is permitted to walk within four cubits [Rashi].

And it further states as a warning:

“Let no man leave his place,”

and we expound:

This refers to two thousand cubits.

And we explain:

From where do we know

that the verse “Let no man leave his place” is interpreted as permitting him to walk two thousand cubits?!

Rav Ḥisda said: We learned it

by means of a gzera shava,

“place”

[“Let no man leave “his place”]

from “place”

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

And

we learned

“place”

from “flight.”

By means of the gzera shava, we interpret the verse as though the expression “flight” [“he shall flee”] were also written in the verse “Let no man leave his place.”

And

we then derive

“flight”

[which, as it were, through the gzera shava, is mentioned in the verse concerning teḥumim] by means of the gzera shava

from “flight,”

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

And “flight” from “boundary,”

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

And

we then derive by means of a gzera shava

boundary from boundary.

It is stated: “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 teḥumim.

And

we then derive the measure of two thousand cubits by means of a gzera shava:

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

concerning the cities of the Levites:

“You shall measure from ‘outside’ the city, on its eastern side, two thousand cubits.”

This teaches that also with regard to teḥumim, in which “outside” is mentioned [by virtue of the preceding derivations], the measure of this “outside” is two thousand cubits.

Thus we have learned that it is prohibited to go beyond two thousand cubits.

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

Let us derive it

from another verse, stated concerning the mitzva to leave an open area around the cities of the Levites: “You shall measure

from the city wall outward—

one thousand cubits,”

and say that the Shabbat teḥum is also only one thousand cubits?!

And we answer: It is true that one

derives

by means of a gzera shava only the expression

“outside,”

as stated concerning the blood avenger: “outside” the boundary,

from “outside”

as it is stated: “From ‘outside’ the city, on its eastern side, two thousand cubits.”

And one does not derive

by means of a gzera shava

“outside”

as stated concerning the blood avenger,

from “outward”

as stated concerning the open area of the cities of the Levites: “and outward, one thousand cubits.”

And we wonder:

What difference is there

between “outside” and “outward”?

And

here

we find that

the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael

derives a gzera shava even when the expressions are not identical but only similar in meaning:

He expounded by means of a gzera shava

“the priest returns” and “the priest comes.”

Since the meanings of the two verses are identical,

this returning is that coming,

even though the wording of the verses is not identical.

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

If so, this is difficult: Let us derive “outside” from “outward,” and say that the measure of the Shabbat teḥum is one thousand cubits, as in the open areas of the cities of the Levites. From where do we know to derive “outside” from “outside,” so that the Shabbat teḥum is two thousand cubits?!

And we answer:

That principle

that we disregard everything except that the meaning be identical applies

when there is nothing else similar to it

also in the wording of the verse.

But when there is something else similar to it,

[when there is an expression similar to it], as here, where one can derive “outside” from “outside” rather than “outside” from “outward,”

from

the verse that

resembles it

both in meaning and in wording

we derive it.

We learned in the Mishna: His place acquired for him

two thousand cubits

in every direction,

circularly, the statement of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus; but the Sages say: It is square, like a square tablet, so that he gains the corners.

And we wonder:

As for Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus, whichever way one considers it

[what does he hold]?

If he accepts the gzera shava

—

the one by which we learned above the measure of two thousand cubits for the Shabbat teḥum, from the verse stated concerning the cities of the Levites, “You shall measure from outside the city, on its eastern side, two thousand cubits”—there

“sides” is written

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

But

if he does not accept

this

gzera shava—

the two thousand cubits

of the Shabbat teḥum—

from where does he derive them?

And we answer:

Actually, he does accept

this

gzera shava

for the two thousand cubits.

And

the reason he does not likewise derive that they must be square is that

here it is different,

in the cities of the Levites,

as the verse says

an expression that limits:

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

And we expound from the limiting word “this”:

for “this”

—for the teḥum of the cities of the Levites—

you assign sides

that are square,

but you do not assign sides

that are square

to those who establish Shabbat residence.

And we challenge this:

But the Sages,

who assign two thousand square cubits, also have the limiting word “this” in the context of the cities of the Levites?!

And we answer:

Teach it this way: Rav Ḥananya says:

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

All those who establish Shabbat residence shall be like this!

That is, the two thousand cubits of the Shabbat teḥum must also be square.

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

is not liable until he carries both

[the four cubits]

and their diagonal.

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

This law is learned from the exposition stated above concerning the teḥum of the cities of the Levites, “All those who establish Shabbat residence shall be like this,” to assign sides to them.

Since “sides” is not applicable to carrying four cubits—for this is not a defined area about which we can say that the Torah required the area to be square—we therefore expound the gzera shava as teaching that he is not liable until he carries both the four cubits and their diagonal.

Rav Pappa said: Rava tested us

[he tested and questioned us]:

Whether a

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 classify it as a private domain,

must

have those four handbreadths, also

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

And we said to him

to Rava: Is this

not the same as Rav Ḥananya’s statement

above?

As it is taught: Rav Ḥananya says: Like this

sides

shall all those who establish Shabbat residence be.

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 establishes an eruv through his feet.

Rabbi Meir said: We have only the poor person

Rabbi Yehuda says: Whether poor or wealthy, they said that one establishes an eruv with bread only to make matters easier for the wealthy person, so that he need not go out and establish his eruv through his feet.

Rav Naḥman said:

The dispute

between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda concerns one who establishes his eruv literally through his feet and says: My residence is

in my place.

That is, Rabbi Meir, who permitted establishing an eruv without bread only for a poor person [or for one who was traveling, who is likewise considered poor], was speaking even of one who establishes his eruv literally through his feet and says, “My residence is in my place.”

Whereas Rabbi Yehuda, who permitted establishing an eruv without bread even for a wealthy person, was referring only to one who establishes his eruv literally through his feet [Rashi below, s.v. “It is taught in accordance with Rav Naḥman’s opinion”].

And this is the basis of their dispute:

Rabbi Meir holds that the primary form of an eruv

is

with bread

[that is, the primary rabbinic institution of eruv was with bread, because this appears more clearly as acquiring residence there, Ritva].

But establishing an eruv without bread—whether he establishes it through his feet and says, “My residence is in my place,” and all the more so if he does not establish it through his feet but recognizes a tree or a fence and says, “My residence is beneath it”—is a leniency.