Eruvin 52b (נב:) — the Talmud in English

And therefore we say:

In accordance with whose opinion? In accordance with Rav Yosef, and in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda,

who says that he need not state it, but he must set out on the road.

For according to Rabba, it accords with no opinion.

For according to Rabbi Yehuda, he must state it. And all the more so does it not accord with Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda, since according to his opinion he need not set out on the road.

And we reject this:

No,

the matter is not as we initially understood it, that he did not state it.

Rather, actually, the case is one where he stated it. And in accordance with whose opinion is this requirement that he state it and set out on the road [Rashi]?

In accordance with Rabba, and in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda,

who requires him to state it and set out on the road. [

And Rashi explained: In truth, it could even accord with Rav Yosef in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that he must state it and set out on the road. Nevertheless, it is preferable to establish it according to Rabba, because with regard to Rabba and Rav Yosef, the halakha is in accordance with Rabba. ]

We learned in the Mishna:

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

but did not establish one is like a donkey-driver.

And we raise an objection:

Did we not already learn this once before?!

That is to say: Why was it necessary to teach, “he is like a donkey-driver”? Let it say: “Anyone who is able to establish an eruv but did not do so is treated as a case of uncertainty,” since we already learned that according to Rabbi Meir, one who placed his eruv at the end of the Shabbat limit, and is uncertain whether his eruv was effective in acquiring his place of residence, is like a donkey-driver, and he may walk only in the direction of the city where he placed his eruv?! As we learned: If the eruv “rolled beyond the limit,” or “a mound fell upon it,” or it “burned,” or if it was “teruma, and it became impure,” if this occurred “while it was still day, it is not an eruv”; if it occurred “after nightfall, it is an eruv.”

If there is

uncertainty, Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda say: He is like a donkey-driver.

We have thus learned that in a case of uncertainty, he is like a donkey-driver.

And we answer:

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

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

doubt

whether

he established an eruv or

whether

he did not establish one,

as when one places bread there and it is uncertain whether it was extant or fit at the time his place of residence was acquired, and in this case

he is 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 says, “My place of residence is in such-and-such a place,” say that

he is not a donkey-driver,

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

Rather, even when he certainly did not establish an eruv

in the other direction, but merely removed himself from one side of the city, he is nevertheless

a donkey-driver.

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

according to Rabbi Meir

a donkey-driver.

Mishna:

One who went beyond the Shabbat limit

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

even one cubit may not reenter

the city, to be like the rest of the city’s residents, 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 if he went out one], he may reenter the city, and once he enters the city’s limit he is like the rest of the city’s residents.

But if he went out

three

cubits,

he may not reenter

at all within the city’s limit.

His reason is that every person has four cubits within which he may walk, and Rabbi Eliezer follows his own reasoning, as stated earlier in the chapter, on page 45a: Those four cubits extend around the person who went out, so he is permitted to walk two cubits in every direction.

Therefore, if he went out two cubits, and his new limit—which consists of his four cubits—is contiguous with his previous limit [Rashi, above, 45a; and all the more so if he went out less than two cubits, in which case the two limits overlap], we say that it is as though he did not go out, and he is permitted throughout his entire limit as at first [this is the law of the “overlapping of limits,” which was explained earlier in the chapter].

Gemara:

Rabbi Hanina said:

One whose

one foot is within

the limit, and whose other foot is outside the limit,

according to the opinion of the first tanna,

he

may not reenter.

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

“Your foot”

is written in the singular:

it is written!

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

And we raise a difficulty:

But it was taught in a beraita: One whose one foot is within the limit and whose other foot is outside the limit may reenter?!

And we answer:

This

beraita, which permits him to reenter,

is in accordance with whose opinion?

It is

the opinion of Aherim [Rabbi Meir, who is called “Aherim”].

As it was taught in a beraita: Aherim say: To the place where most of him

is,

he is considered to have been thrown. [Some versions read: “to have darted,” as in the expression, “so that the kid may dart headlong.”]

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.

There are those who state the matter differently: Rabbi Hanina said:

One whose one foot is within the limit and whose other foot is outside the limit—

may reenter.

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

“Your feet” is read [it is read with a segol], and only when he went out with both feet is he prohibited from bringing them back.

And this is how we raise the difficulty:

But it was taught:

One whose one foot is within the limit and whose other foot is outside the limit

may not reenter?!

And this is how we answer:

He [Rabbi Hanina, who permitted him to reenter]

spoke in accordance with Aherim, as it was taught in a beraita:

Aherim say:

To the place where most of him is, he is considered to have been thrown.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Eliezer says: If he went out two cubits, he may reenter; if three, he may not reenter.

And we raise a difficulty:

But it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Eliezer says: If he went out one cubit, he may reenter; if two, he may not reenter?!

And we answer:

This is not difficult. This

[the Mishna] speaks of a case

where he lifted one

[foot, meaning that he left the first cubit]

and stood on the second

[that is, he stood on the second cubit outside the limit]. Since he did not go out beyond two cubits, there is an overlapping of limits, and it is considered as though he did not go out; therefore, he may reenter.

However,

this

beraita, which said that he may not reenter, speaks of a case

where he lifted both

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

and stood on the third

[he stood on the third cubit]. Since he is standing on the third cubit, none of his previous limit remains within his new limit; therefore, he may not reenter.

And we still raise a difficulty:

But it was taught

in another beraita:

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

And we answer: That beraita does not speak at all of one who went beyond the limit. Rather,

when that was taught, it was with regard to one who measures.

That is to say: It refers to one who was outside the city when Shabbat fell upon him and said, “My place of residence is where I am.” When he walks on Shabbat, he measures two thousand average paces, and when they end, that is the end of his limit. It is with regard to this that we say that even if his measure ended one cubit outside the limit of his city, he may not reenter.

The reason is that even if his measure had ended within the city’s limit, he would be prohibited from going more than two thousand cubits from his place of residence.

And as we learned:

And with regard to one who measures, concerning whom 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

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

Mishna:

One who

was traveling on Friday afternoon in order to come to his city, and

nightfall

overtook him when he was

outside the limit, even by one cubit,

he

may not reenter

the city, to be like the city’s residents, who have two thousand cubits in every direction from the city.

Rather, he may walk only two thousand cubits from his location.

But if he was residing within the city’s limit, his status is like that of the rest of the city’s residents .

Rabbi Shimon says: Even

if he is short by fifteen cubits [not specifically; Rashi’s first explanation, although the extent is not clarified] of reaching the city’s limit,

he

may enter,

because

the surveyors

[those who measure] of the city’s limit—when they make a marker at the end of the limit to indicate that the Shabbat limit extends only this far—

draw in the measurements.

That is to say: They do not take care to place the marker precisely at the end of the two thousand cubits; rather, they set it within the limit.

They do so

because of those who err,

who walk on Shabbat as far as the end of the limit but do not pay attention to the fact that they have passed the marker and gone beyond the limit, and then return to the city in violation [according to Rashi’s first explanation; the second explanation will be discussed in the Gemara].

Since this is so, one may assume that although he is standing one cubit beyond the marker placed as the end of the city’s limit, in truth he has already entered the city’s limit and acquired his place of residence in the city, like the rest of the city’s residents.

Gemara:

A tanna taught

in a beraita to explain Rabbi Shimon’s statement that he does so “because of those who err”: namely,

because of those who err in the measurement

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

Rashi explained in his second explanation—and the Ritva agreed with it—that when we say, because of those who err in “the measurement,” those who err in the measurement are the surveyors themselves. They err in calculating the limit by fifteen cubits and place the marker that distance before the end of the limit, as will be explained.

Since the true calculation extends fifteen cubits farther, when the traveler reaches exactly fifteen cubits beyond the marker placed by those who erred in the measurement, he is within the city’s limit.

Their error is as follows: The limit is measured with a rope fifty cubits long, as explained in the Mishna below. At both ends of this rope there are handles, which are included in the length of the rope. However, the surveyors err and think that the rope is fifty cubits long in addition to the handles.

Consequently, when they measure forty times with this rope, they think that they have reached the end of the limit and place a marker there. In truth, they have measured only forty times with a rope of fifty cubits less two times a handbreadth and half a fingerbreadth, which is the measure of the two handles.

It follows that the measurement is short by eighty handbreadths and forty fingerbreadths, which together equal ninety handbreadths [four fingerbreadths to a handbreadth]. Converting these handbreadths into cubits—six handbreadths to a cubit—the calculation comes to exactly fifteen cubits missing from the limit [Rashi and Ritva].

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

Introduction

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

The end of the city is the place where the houses of the city end, or the wall surrounding the city ends. If there are isolated houses that project outward beyond the other houses of the city, those houses are added to the area of the city, and a line is extended from them parallel to the entire side of the city, according to the distance of the houses from the city.

It follows that the city is considered as though it had been “extended” from the houses projecting from it.

In addition to this extension, the city is also “squared”: for the purpose of measuring the techum, the city is “enclosed” within a square framework surrounding it, and the techum is measured beyond the square framework, rather than from the houses at the end of the city.

Mishna:

How

“are [the cities] extended”

the cities?

That is, how is an “extension” added to the city?

a. If, when designating the techum of the city and measuring two thousand cubits in every direction from its boundaries, there was at the city’s boundary

a house that receded

inward among the other houses of the city, or

a house that projected

and protruded beyond the row of the city’s houses, and the house was within seventy cubits and a remainder of the city;

or

if there was

a “breach,”

a tower in the city wall,

receding, or projecting

and protruding beyond the line of the wall;

or if

there were

at one of the corners of the city, within seventy cubits and a remainder,

ruined walls

of houses

ten handbreadths high.