Eruvin 52b — the Talmud in English

And therefore we say:

According to whom? According to Rav Yosef, and according to the position of Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda

who says that he need not say it, but to take hold of the road he must.

For if according to Rabba, it accords with no one.

For according to Rabbi Yehuda, he must indeed say it. And all the more so, it does not accord with Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda, since according to his words he need not take hold of the road.

And we reject this:

No,

not as it entered our minds, that he did not say it.

Rather, it always deals with a case in which he said it; and according to whom does this statement, that we require him to say it and to take hold of the road, accord [Rashi]?

According to Rabba and according to the position of Rabbi Yehuda

who requires him to say it and to take hold of the road.

[Rashi explained: In truth, it accords even with Rav Yosef according to the position of Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that he must say it and take hold of the road; rather, according to Rabba it is preferable for him to establish it, because between Rabba and Rav Yosef, the halakha is according to Rabba.]

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Meir says: Anyone who is able to establish an eruv

but did not establish one is a ḥamar and a donkey-driver.

And we raise an objection:

Did we not already learn this once?

That is to say: Why does he need to teach, “he is a ḥamar and a donkey-driver”? Let him say, “Anyone who is able to establish an eruv but did not establish one is treated as a doubt,” since we already learned that according to Rabbi Meir, one who placed his eruv at the end of the תחום, and it is doubtful to him whether his eruv was effective in acquiring a place of residence, is a ḥamar and a donkey-driver, and he is permitted to go only in the direction of the city on that side where he placed his eruv?! For so we learned: If the eruv “rolled” “outside the תחום,” or a “mound fell upon it,” or it “was burned,” or it was “teruma, and became impure,” if this occurred “while it was still day, it is not an eruv”; if “after nightfall, it is an eruv.”

If there is a

doubt, Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda say: He is a ḥamar and a donkey-driver.

We have thus learned that in a case of doubt he is a ḥamar and a donkey-driver.

And we answer:

Rav Sheshet said: Do not say that the reason of Rabbi Meir is

that is to say: Do not say that Rabbi Meir spoke only in a place where there is a

doubt

whether he

established an eruv, a doubt

whether he

did not establish an eruv,

as when one placed bread and there is a doubt whether it was present or fit at the time of acquiring the place of residence, and in this case

he is a ḥamar and a donkey-driver.

But

where he

certainly did not establish an eruv,

as in our Mishna, where he certainly does not acquire a place of residence—according to Rabbi Meir—when he said, “My place of residence is in such-and-such a place,” say that he

is not a ḥamar and a donkey-driver,

since he certainly did not acquire a place of residence elsewhere, but only in his city.

Rather, even when he certainly did not establish an eruv

in the other direction, but only removed himself from one side of the city, he is also

a ḥamar and a donkey-driver.

For here he certainly did not establish an eruv, and yet he is

according to Rabbi Meir

a ḥamar and a donkey-driver.

Mishna:

One who went outside the תחום

of the city deliberately and knowingly, and not for the purpose of a mitzva [Rashi; and the law of one who goes for the purpose of a mitzva was explained earlier in this chapter],

even one cubit he may not enter

the city, to be like the other residents of the city, who have two thousand cubits in every direction from the city; rather, he has only the four cubits beneath him.

Rabbi Eliezer says:

If he went out

two

[cubits, and all the more so one], he may enter the city, and once he enters the city’s תחום he is like the other residents of the city.

But if he went out

three

cubits,

he may not enter

the city’s תחום at all.

And his reason is: Because every person has four cubits in which he is permitted to walk, and Rabbi Eliezer follows his reasoning—from earlier in this chapter, page 45a—that those four cubits are around the person who went out, and he has permission to walk two cubits in every direction.

And therefore, if he went out two cubits, and his new תחום—which is his four cubits—is contiguous with his former תחום [Rashi above, 45a; and all the more so if he went out less than two cubits, so that the two תחומים overlap one another], we say that it is as though he did not go out, and he is permitted throughout his entire תחום as at first [and this is the law of “overlap of תחומים,” which was explained earlier in this chapter].

Gemara:

Rabbi Hanina said:

One whose

one foot was inside

the תחום, and whose one foot was outside the תחום,

according to the position of the first tanna—

may not enter.

For it is written: “If you restrain your foot because of the Shabbat,” “your foot.”

“Your foot”

one

is written!

For we follow the written form and not the reading, which has a segol and is read “your feet.” That is to say: Even if you took out only one foot, you may not return [Meiri below].

And we are astonished:

But it was taught in a beraita: One whose one foot was inside the תחום and whose one foot was outside the תחום may enter?!

And we answer:

This

beraita that permitted entering—

who is it? It is Others

[Rabbi Meir, who is called “Others”]

who say so.

For it was taught in a beraita: Others say: To the place where the majority of him is,

there

he is thrown [and some versions read: “he is stretched out,” as in “so that the kid may be stretched out at a single bound”],

That is to say: It is as though his entire body had entered the place where most of him is located. Since most of him is still within the limit, as only one foot preceded him outside the limit, it is as though he did not leave his limit.

That is to say: It is as though his entire body had come to the place where the majority of him is found; and since the majority of him is still inside the תחום, as only one foot preceded him outside the תחום, it is as though he did not leave his תחום.

There are those who say: Rabbi Hanina said:

One whose one foot was inside the תחום and whose one foot was outside the תחום may enter.

For it is written: “If you restrain your foot because of the Shabbat.”

“Your feet” is read

[for it is read with a segol], and only when he went out with both his feet is he forbidden to return them.

And this is how we are astonished:

But it was taught in a beraita:

One whose one foot is in the תחום and whose one foot is outside the תחום

may not enter?!

And this is how we answer:

He

[Rabbi Hanina, who permitted it]

speaks according to Others, for it was taught in a beraita

that Others say:

To the place where the majority of him is, he is thrown.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Eliezer says: Two, he may enter; three, he may not enter.

And we are astonished:

But it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Eliezer says: One, he may enter; two, he may not enter?!

And we answer:

It is not difficult; this

[the Mishna] deals with a case

where he uprooted one

[he left the first cubit]

and stood on two

[he stood in the second cubit outside the תחום]; and since he did not go out more than two cubits, there is an overlap of תחומים, and it is considered as though he did not go out, so he may enter.

But

this

beraita, which said that he may not enter, deals with a case

where he uprooted two

[he left even the second cubit adjacent to the תחום]

and stood on three

[he stood in the third cubit]; and since he is standing in the third cubit, he has nothing of his former תחום within his new תחום, and therefore he may not enter.

And we are still astonished:

But it was taught in a beraita

in another beraita:

Rabbi Eliezer says: Even one cubit he may not enter?!

And we answer: That beraita does not deal at all with one who went outside the תחום; rather,

when that was taught, it was concerning one measuring.

That is to say: Concerning one who was outside the city when Shabbat grew dark upon him and said, “My place of residence is where I am,” and when he walks on Shabbat he measures two thousand average paces, and once they are finished, there is the end of his תחום; and concerning this we say that even if his measure ended one cubit outside the תחום of his city, he may not enter.

And the reason is: Because even if his measure had ended within the תחום of his city, he would be forbidden to go more than two thousand cubits from the place of his residence.

And so

we learned: And concerning the one measuring, as the Sages said

:

they give him two thousand cubits,

they do not give him more,

even

if

the end of his measure

[the two thousand cubits]

ends in a cave,

which is surrounded by partitions; he may walk only as far as the place where the two thousand cubits end.

Mishna:

One who

was traveling on the eve of Shabbat in order to come to his city, and

it grew dark

for him while he was

outside the תחום even one cubit,

he

may not enter

the city, to be like the residents of the city, who have two thousand cubits in all the directions of the city.

Rather, he walks only two thousand cubits from his place.

But if he was residing within the city’s תחום, his law is like that of the other residents of the city.

Rabbi Shimon says: Even

if he is short

fifteen cubits

[not specifically so, Rashi in his first explanation; however, it was not explained how far] from the city’s תחום, he

may enter,

because

the measurers

[those who measure] of the city’s תחום—when they make a sign at the end of the תחום to know that up to here is the Shabbat תחום—

make the measurements short.

That is to say: They do not take care to place the sign at the end of the two thousand cubits, but bring it inward, within the תחום.

And they do so

because of those who err,

who walk on Shabbat to the end of the תחום, and do not pay attention that they have passed the sign and gone outside the תחום, and return to the city in prohibition [according to Rashi’s first explanation; and the second explanation will be explained in the Gemara].

And since this is so, one may assume that although he is standing one cubit beyond the sign placed as the end of the city’s תחום, in truth he has already entered the city’s תחום and acquired a place of residence in the city like the other residents of the city.

Gemara:

A tanna taught

in a beraita to explain the words of Rabbi Shimon, who said “because of those who err”: That is,

because of those who err in the measurement

[the sign that was placed to establish the end of the measurement], as was explained in the Mishna.

And Rashi explained in his second explanation—and the Ritva agreed with this—that when we say, because of those who err in “the measurement,” those who err in the measurement are the measurers themselves, who err in calculating the תחום by fifteen cubits and place the sign this amount before the end of the תחום, as will be explained.

And since the true calculation is fifteen cubits more, when the one coming from the road reaches exactly fifteen cubits beyond the sign placed by those who erred in the measurement, he is within the city’s תחום.

And their error is as follows: The measurement of the תחום is carried out with a rope of fifty cubits, as explained in the Mishna below. That rope has, at both its ends, handles that are included in the length of the rope; but the measurers err and think that the length of the rope is fifty cubits excluding the handles.

Consequently, when they measure with this rope forty times, they think that they have reached the end of the תחום and place a sign there; but in truth they measured only forty times with a rope of fifty cubits less two times a handbreadth and half a finger, which is the measure of each handle.

It follows that eighty handbreadths and forty fingers are missing from the measure, which together equal ninety handbreadths [four fingers to a handbreadth]; and when these handbreadths are divided into cubits—six handbreadths to a cubit—the calculation comes to exactly fifteen cubits missing from the תחום [Rashi and the Ritva].

We shall return to you, chapter “One Who Was Taken Outside.”

Introduction

The two thousand cubits of the techum of Shabbat are measured from the end of the city.

The end of the city is the place where the houses of the city, or the wall surrounding the city, end. If there are isolated houses protruding outward beyond the other houses of the city, those houses add area to the city, and one draws from them a line parallel to the entire side of the city, according to the distance of the houses from the city.

And it is found that the city is as though “extended” from the houses protruding from it.

In addition to this extension, one also “squares” the city: for the purpose of measuring the techum, one “closes” the city within a square table around it, and measures the techum beyond the square table, and not from the houses at the end of the city.

Mishna:

How

“do they extend”

the cities?

That is to say, how does one add an “extension” to the city?

A. If, when one comes to mark the city’s techum, and comes to measure from its boundaries two thousand cubits in every direction, there was at the boundary of the city

a house entering

inward between the other houses of the city, or

a house going out

and protruding from the row of the city’s houses—and the house was within seventy cubits and remnants of a cubit of the city—

or

there was

a “breach,”

a tower in the city wall,

entering, a breach going out

and protruding beyond the line of the wall;

or if

there were at one of the corners of the city, within seventy cubits and remnants of a cubit,

at one of the corners of the city, within seventy cubits and residual cubits,

mounds

the ruins of houses

ten handbreadths high.