Eruvin 52a — the Talmud in English

He said,

meaning, he was accustomed to say on Friday afternoon:

“Let my Shabbat limit be in Tzintana”

[a specific and defined place located between the Shabbat limits of Artivna and Pumbedita], in order to permit himself to walk there on Shabbat.

Abaye said to him: What is your reasoning

[why do you think] that acquiring a Shabbat residence through speech, without physically establishing your residence there, will be effective for you, even though you are wealthy?

If it is because we have established that wherever

Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda disagree, the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda, and Rav Ḥisda said: The dispute

between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda in our Mishna concerns a person who is at home and says, “My Shabbat residence is

in a particular place,”

and according to Rabbi Yehuda, can a wealthy person say, “My Shabbat residence is in a particular place”?!

But

there is

Rav Naḥman

who disagrees with Rav Ḥisda and says that when one is at home and says, “My Shabbat residence is in a particular place,” everyone agrees that this is effective only for a poor person.

And

indeed,

it was taught

in the aforementioned beraita

in accordance with him

Rav Naḥman; and if so, you too must rule in accordance with Rav Naḥman. Since you are wealthy, you may not rely on this eruv; rather, you must go out and place bread there, or be present at the site of the Shabbat residence throughout twilight!

Rabba bar Rav Ḥanan said to him

:

I retract my statement

[I recant].

Rami bar Ḥama said: They said

the Sages that if a person

spent Shabbat

physically present at his location during twilight and acquired a Shabbat residence there,

he has four cubits

at the place of his Shabbat residence, and he measures two thousand cubits beyond them.

But there is a question concerning the status of

one who places his eruv

by setting down bread that will acquire a Shabbat residence for him at the end of two thousand cubits from his location.

Does he

have four cubits

at the place where he placed his eruv, and measure two thousand cubits beyond them,

or

perhaps

not?

Rava said: Come and hear

from what we learned in our Mishna:

The Sages said

that

one may establish an eruv with bread only

in order

“to make it easier” for a wealthy person, so that he need not go out and establish his eruv by physically going there

, but may send a messenger to place the bread on his behalf and acquire a Shabbat residence there.

And if you say

that when one places bread for his eruv,

he does not have

four additional cubits beyond the two thousand, then is

this

provision that bread is effective

“to make it easier”

for a wealthy person?

On the contrary,

it makes the situation more stringent!

For if he had established his eruv by physically going there, he would have had four additional cubits beyond the two thousand; and now, through the provision that permits placing bread, he loses these four cubits?!

And we reject this: Rami bar Ḥama held that he had not resolved the question from here,

[Rami Ḥama], because this is not a proof.

Even so,

although he loses the four cubits,

the wealthy person is pleased

with this provision of establishing an eruv with bread,

so that he need not trouble himself and go out

[so that he need not trouble himself and go out] to establish the eruv himself, and he can send a messenger.

Mishna:

One who went out

from his home on Friday afternoon in order

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

[with which one can establish an eruv]

for it

, as the distance between that city and his city is no more than four thousand cubits, and one who wishes to go there on Shabbat can do so by means of an eruv,

and

after he had gone out any distance [Rashi above],

his fellow brought him back

to his home,

he is permitted to go

on Shabbat to that city, even though he did not establish an eruv,

but all the inhabitants of the city are prohibited; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda,

[and the Gemara will explain Rabbi Yehuda’s reasoning].

Rabbi Meir says: Anyone who could establish an eruv but did not establish one is like a donkey-driver,

[his statement and reasoning will be explained in the Gemara].

Gemara:

We raise a difficulty:

What is different about him

[the one who went out on the road], that he is permitted to go on Shabbat to that city,

and what is different about them

[the inhabitants of the city], that they are prohibited from going on Shabbat to that city unless they established an eruv with bread?!

He said

—Rav Huna explained:

Here, with what are we dealing?

With a case in which he has

[the one who went out on the road]

two houses

in the two cities,

and between them

the houses [Ritva] there is a distance of

two Shabbat limits,

which is four thousand cubits.

He

[the one who went out on the road],

since he went out onto the road

[since he set out on the road],

became a poor person

for whom it is permitted to acquire a Shabbat residence by saying, “My Shabbat residence is in a particular place.”

But these

[the inhabitants of the city]

are wealthy,

and we do not grant them the leniency of establishing an eruv without bread.

[The continuation of the Gemara will explain whether the one who went out on the road must say, “My Shabbat residence is between the two limits,” or not. There too, Rabbi Meir’s statement will be explained.]

It was taught likewise

that the Mishna is discussing one who has two houses with two Shabbat limits between them:

One who has two houses with two Shabbat limits between them—

once he has begun traveling, he acquires an eruv; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

Moreover, Rabbi Yosei ben Rabbi Yehuda said: Even if his fellow encountered him and said to him, “Spend the night here,”

because

it is a hot time

or

it is a cold time

—

tomorrow

if he wishes,

he rises early and goes

to that city, [the Gemara explains this and proceeds].

[The following teaching is interpreted in accordance with Rashi’s second explanation, and the Ritva agreed with it.]

Rabba said

in explanation of the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei ben Rabbi Yehuda in the beraita:

To say

explicitly, “My Shabbat residence is in a particular place between the two Shabbat limits”—

everyone

[Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei ben Rabbi Yehuda]

agrees that he must do so.

[Rashi explained: Although our Mishna does not mention that he says that he wishes to acquire a Shabbat residence, the tanna relied on what was stated in the previous Mishna: “My Shabbat residence is at its principal point”; our Mishna is likewise discussing such a case.]

And we do not say that since he has a house in the second city, he certainly did not remove from his mind the intention of going there, and therefore intended to acquire a Shabbat residence between the two Shabbat limits.

They disagree

whether he needs

to begin traveling

[to begin setting out on the road] so that he is considered poor [like travelers] and can acquire a Shabbat residence through speech; and this is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.

Whereas Rabbi Yosei ben Rabbi Yehuda holds that he need not even begin setting out on the road. Rather, even if his fellow encountered him while he was still at home, when he was preparing to set out on the road, and said to him, “Spend the night here; it is a hot time, it is a cold time”—we consider him as though he had already set out. And tomorrow he rises early and goes to his house in the second city, provided that he said that his Shabbat residence should be between the two Shabbat limits.

And Rav Yosef said

in explanation of their dispute:

To begin traveling

on the road,

everyone

[Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei ben Rabbi Yehuda]

agrees that he must do so

so that he is considered poor and his acquisition of a Shabbat residence through speech will be effective.

They disagree

whether he must

say

explicitly that he is acquiring a Shabbat residence for himself between the two Shabbat limits.

According to Rabbi Yehuda, he acquires a Shabbat residence only if he said so.

And Rabbi Yosei ben Rabbi Yehuda came and added that even if he said nothing, if his fellow brought him back by saying to him, “Spend the night here [that is, in your city, Ritva]; it is cold,” he rises early and goes. Since he has a house there, he certainly did not abandon his intention to go there; rather, he returned to his house because of the cold or the heat, and intended to acquire a Shabbat residence at the end of the limit, so that he does not even need to make a statement.

In accordance with whose opinion does this statement of Ulla go: One who began traveling and his fellow brought him back—he is

“brought back and established”?

At first, we explain it, as this statement apparently contains two contradictory descriptions:

If he is brought back

and did not acquire a Shabbat residence at all,

why is he established

[for “established” implies that he acquired a Shabbat residence]?

And if he is established

and acquired a Shabbat residence,

why

do you say that he is

brought back

and did not acquire a Shabbat residence?!

And we explain:

This is what he is saying: Even though he is brought back

in actuality to his city, he is

established

and acquired a Shabbat residence.

In accordance with whose opinion

does this statement of Ulla go, implying that even if he said nothing he acquired a Shabbat residence [since he stated his words without specifying explicitly that he is discussing a case in which he made such a statement, for it is not the way of the amoraim to leave their statements unspecified rather than explain them, Ritva; and see Rashi’s wording]?

In accordance with Rav Yosef, and according to Rabbi Yosei ben Rabbi Yehuda,

who says that he need not say so.

Rav Yehuda bar Ishtata

[a person’s name]

brought him

on Friday afternoon

a basket of fruit

[he brought a basket of fruit]

for Rav Natan bar Oshaya.

When he was going

[Rav Yehuda bar Ishtata] and wished to return home,

he left him

[he left him]

Rav Natan bar Oshaya

without saying anything to him

until he descended one step

[he went down one step from the upper floor to the lower floor], and then

he said to him

Rav Naḥman bar Oshaya:

Stay here

[spend the night here]!

The next day,

on Shabbat,

Rav Yehuda bar Ishtata rose early

Rav Yehuda bar Ishtata

and went

to his house, which was beyond the Shabbat limit;

And we initially understand that Rav Yehuda did not explicitly say that he should acquire a Shabbat residence at the end of the limit, and nevertheless he went on Shabbat to his house, which was beyond the Shabbat limit.

And from the fact that Rav Natan waited for him until he began traveling toward his home, it is proven that he must begin traveling.