Eruvin 51b — the Talmud in English

Therefore, only

a poor man

[or one coming on the road, who is like a poor man]

is one over whom the Rabbis were lenient

to establish an eruv without bread;

but a wealthy man

who has bread with which to establish an eruv

was not

permitted to establish an eruv without bread.

And Rabbi Yehuda holds: The primary

law of the

eruv

that is effective for acquiring a residence is to establish it

with his feet,

as he says: Let my residence be in my place; and therefore

both a poor man and a wealthy man

who established it with their feet acquire [a residence].

But

if he said: Let my residence be

in a certain place

far from me, and did not leave bread there,

according to everyone

[Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda]—

a poor man, yes,

he can establish an eruv in this manner, but

a wealthy man cannot.

And that which we say in the Mishna:

“And this is what they said

that a poor man establishes an eruv with his feet”

which implies that establishing an eruv without bread is not the primary form of establishing an eruv, but rather a leniency for a poor man—so explained Rashi ; and the Ritva added another explanation: The Gemara’s intention is the wording: He establishes an eruv “with his feet,” which implies that it refers to establishing an eruv literally with his feet, and nevertheless it is only a poor man who establishes an eruv in this manner, and not a wealthy man. Who teaches it?—

Rabbi Meir.

And to what does it refer?—

To one who does not recognize [the place], or who is not familiar with the halakha.

That is to say: Even one who does not recognize [the place], and therefore establishes an eruv with his feet and says, “Let my residence be in my place”—Rabbi Meir also says concerning him, “And this is what they said: A poor man establishes an eruv with his feet,” to say that it is a leniency with which they were lenient for a poor man, to establish an eruv in this manner.

And that which we say in the Mishna,

“And they said that one establishes an eruv

with bread only as a leniency”

for the wealthy man, so that he need not go out and establish an eruv with his feet [which implies that the primary form of establishing an eruv is with one’s feet].

Who teaches it?—

Rabbi Yehuda,

and not Rabbi Meir.

For according to Rabbi Meir, the primary form of establishing an eruv is with bread, and even when he establishes an eruv literally with his feet, that is not the primary form of establishing an eruv.

And Rav Hisda said:

The dispute

between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda is concerning one who recognizes a tree or a fence and says: Let my residence be

in a certain place

located far from me.

That is to say: Rabbi Meir was stringent with regard to a wealthy man, that he may not establish an eruv without bread, only when he is not literally establishing an eruv with his feet.

And Rabbi Yehuda, who was lenient even with regard to a wealthy man, permitting him to establish an eruv without bread, is speaking even of one who is not literally establishing an eruv with his feet;

and this is the basis of their dispute:

For Rabbi Meir holds:

Since he is not establishing an eruv with his feet, but it is merely a verbal declaration,

a poor man

[or one traveling on the road]

yes, but a wealthy man no.

And Rabbi Yehuda holds:

Even though this is not the primary form of establishing an eruv [for it applies only to one who establishes an eruv literally with his feet, Rashi below], and there is here only a verbal declaration—

both a poor man and a wealthy man

who said, “Let my residence be in a certain place,” benefit [from this declaration].

But

one who says: Let my residence be

in my place—

according to everyone, both a poor man and a wealthy man

acquire [a residence],

for the primary form of establishing an eruv is with one’s feet.

And that which we say in the Mishna:

“And this is what they said”

that a poor man establishes an eruv with his feet.

Who teaches it?—

Rabbi Meir.

And to which case does it refer? To this: One who came on the road and it grew dark

and said: Let my residence be at the base of the tree.

That is to say: Since we have said that Rabbi Meir was stringent with a wealthy man only with regard to one who does not say, “Let my residence be in my place,” necessarily what is stated in the Mishna—“And this is what they said: A poor man,” and not a wealthy man, establishes an eruv with his feet—speaks of one who said: Let my residence be at the base of the tree.

For if it were speaking of one who said, “Let my residence be in my place,” then according to Rabbi Meir as well it is not specifically a poor man.

And since this is so, necessarily we must force the interpretation that this clause refers only to Rabbi Meir. And although that which it teaches, “And this is what they said: A poor man establishes an eruv with his feet,” implies that this establishment of an eruv is not the primary form of establishing an eruv—it can properly refer even to Rabbi Yehuda, for according to everyone it is not the primary form of establishing an eruv. Nevertheless, since it teaches “a poor man” establishes an eruv with his feet, and not a wealthy man, it is Rabbi Meir.

And that which we say in the Mishna:

“And they said that one establishes an eruv with bread only as a leniency”

for the wealthy man, so that he need not go out and establish an eruv with his feet.

Who teaches it?—

necessarily,

according to everyone

it is.

And it is not a continuation of Rabbi Yehuda’s words, and it does not refer at all to “Let my residence be in a certain place,” concerning which Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda dispute. For this wording implies that the primary form of establishing an eruv is without bread, and this applies only when he says, “Let my residence be in my place,” because when he says, “Let my residence be in a certain place,” even though according to Rabbi Yehuda it is effective even for a wealthy man, nevertheless it is not the primary form of establishing an eruv.

And since this is so, this clause is interpreted as referring to one who says, “Let my residence be in my place,” teaching that according to everyone even a wealthy man establishes an eruv in this manner, since this is the primary form of establishing an eruv.

A beraita was taught in accordance with Rav Naḥman

[who said that according to Rabbi Meir, even literally establishing an eruv with one’s feet is effective only for a poor man; and one who says, “Let my residence be in a certain place,” and did not leave bread there, according to Rabbi Yehuda as well benefits from this only if he is a poor man]:

Both a poor man and a wealthy man establish an eruv

[that is, they can establish an eruv]

with bread; and a wealthy man need not go outside the limit

[that is, to the end of the limit, or within four cubits outside the limit of two thousand cubits, Rashi]

and say:

Let there be

my residence in my place.

For they said that one establishes an eruv with his feet only for one who came on the road and it grew dark

[who thereby became a poor man],

the words of Rabbi Meir.

We have thus learned that even with regard to literally establishing an eruv with his feet, Rabbi Meir was lenient only for a poor man, in accordance with Rav Naḥman’s opinion.

Rabbi Yehuda says: Both a poor man and a wealthy man establish an eruv

[they can establish an eruv]

with his feet, and a wealthy man may go out

if he wishes

outside the limit and say: Let my residence be in my place.

We have thus learned that a wealthy man establishes an eruv without bread only when he establishes an eruv literally with his feet, since Rabbi Yehuda said that he goes outside the limit, and did not say that he says, “Let my residence be in a certain place.”

And this is the primary form of establishing an eruv!

And the Sages permitted the head of the household to send his eruv by the hand of his slave

or

by the hand of his son

or

by the hand of his agent, in order to be lenient for him.

Rabbi Yehuda said: There was an incident involving the people of the house of Memal

and the people of the house of Gurion in Aruma

[a place name],

who were distributing dried figs

[dried figs]

and raisins to the poor during years of famine.

And

they would

come

on the eve of Shabbat,

the poor of Kefar Shiḥin and the poor of Kefar Ḥananya—

who wished to go on Shabbat to Aruma [which was less than four thousand cubits distant from their place] in order to receive the dried figs—and they would remain

and make it dark at

the end of

the limit,

and acquire residence there, return to their homes, and

the next day rise early and come

to Aruma, since they had acquired residence on the road.

It follows that they were permitted to remain until dark at the limit and say, “Let my residence be in my place,” and they did not need to place bread there, even though with regard to an eruv they were wealthy. For certainly they had in their homes enough food for two meals, which is required for an eruv.

And this proves the view of Rabbi Yehuda, that the primary form of establishing an eruv is with one’s feet, and bread is not needed even for a wealthy man [Rashi].

Rav Ashi said: The Mishna

[below]

also precisely indicates

in accordance with Rav Naḥman [who said that according to Rabbi Yehuda only a poor man can say, “Let my residence be in a certain place”].

For it teaches

[the explanation of the Mishna here follows Rashi’s second wording below]:

One who went out

[even any amount of going out] from his home on the eve of Shabbat in order

to go to a city toward which one can establish an eruv

[so that one can establish an eruv in order to come to that city on Shabbat], since it was not four thousand cubits distant from the city of origin,

and his fellow turned him back

from the road.

And the one who went out on the road said, “Let my residence be at a certain place at the end of the limit”—

he is permitted to walk

on Shabbat to that city,

but all the inhabitants of the city are forbidden

[the Gemara explains this as it proceeds],

the words of Rabbi Yehuda.

And we raised a difficulty concerning it: What is different about him

who is permitted to walk to that city on Shabbat,

and what is different about them

[the inhabitants of the city], who are forbidden to walk to that city on Shabbat?

And Rav Huna said: Here we are dealing with a case where he has two houses

in these two cities,

and

there are

two Shabbat limits

[four thousand cubits]

between them

of these houses [Ritva];

he,

[the owner of the houses,]

since he went out on the road

and left his city in order to reach, before Shabbat, his house in the nearby city [and not in order to establish an eruv, Rashi],

became a poor man,

like the other wayfarers who have no bread with them, and he is permitted to acquire residence by saying, “Let my residence be at a certain place” between the two limits.

And since he said that his residence should be there [according to Rashi in the discussion below, not according to his words here], he walks on Shabbat as far as that city.

And

if

the others

[the other inhabitants of the city], even if they said, “Let our residence be in a certain place,” did not acquire residence, because

they are wealthy,

since they are in their homes and certainly have bread.

Evidently,

even according to Rabbi Yehuda,

whenever

he establishes an eruv

in a certain place, a poor man, yes; a wealthy man, no.

And we conclude:

Learn from it!

Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi taught it to Ḥiyya bar Rav before Rav:

“Both a poor man and a wealthy man”,

that is, he was teaching him our Mishna, including what Rabbi Yehuda said: “Both a poor man and a wealthy man.”

Rav said to him

to Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi:

Conclude it also

[continue and say to him]:

The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda,

and in accordance with Rav Naḥman’s understanding of Rabbi Yehuda, that it is not effective for a wealthy man to acquire residence without bread except when he says, “Let my residence be in my place”

—so explained Rashi ; and see the Maharsha, who explained his words: where it is included that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda according to Rav Naḥman’s method. Rabba bar Rav Ḥanan was accustomed to come

every Shabbat

from Artivna

[a place name]

to Pumbedita,

which were more distant from each other than the Shabbat limit,