Eruvin 61a — the Talmud in English

As we learned below:

“The residents of a large city may walk throughout the entire small city” ![](pamud.bmp "

precise page location")

“but the residents of a small city may not walk throughout the entire large city,”

as though the city were only four cubits; rather, the dimensions of the city are fully included in the measurement of their Shabbat limit.

What is the reason

that the Mishna distinguishes between the residents of the large city and the residents of the small city?

Is it not because these people,

the residents of the small city,

reach the end of their measure in the middle of the large city,

and therefore the rest of that city is not considered for them as four cubits, just as in the first ruling stated by Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi?

And these people,

the residents of the large city,

reach the end of their measure at the end of the small city,

and therefore the entire city is considered for them as four cubits, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi stated in the second ruling.

If so, this is difficult for Rav Idi, who characterized the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi as “words of prophecy,” and it is also difficult with regard to Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, since his statement was already said in the Mishna.

! And

we answer:

Rabbi Idi

taught the Mishna differently, and according to his version there is indeed no distinction between the residents of a large city and the residents of a small city.

Rather,

the residents

of a large city may walk throughout the entire small city.

And likewise,

the residents

of a small city may walk throughout the entire large city.

This is how

Rav Idi taught

the Mishna.

And he explains it

the Mishna

as referring to one who places

his eruv in the other city. By placing an eruv, one acquires the entire city as though it were four cubits, and measures the Shabbat limit from outside the city.

But one who measures,

who did not place an eruv,

we did not learn

in our Mishna, and from the Mishna we do not know of a distinction between one whose measure ends at the edge of the city and one whose measure ends in the middle of the city.

In this way Rav Idi also answers the question concerning Rabbi Yehoshua: What is his novel teaching?

For since he explained the Mishna as referring to one who places his eruv in a city, and not to one who measures, Rabbi Yehoshua taught the ruling concerning one who measures.

We ask:

And

is it the case

that

the ruling concerning one who measures is not mentioned in our Mishna?

But we learned

explicitly in the following Mishna [at the end of this folio]:

“And with regard to the one who measures,”

whom the Sages said

“they give him two thousand cubits,”

this ruling applies

even if the end of his measure falls within a cave;

he may not continue walking through it.

And we answer: The ruling concerning one whose measure ends at

the edge of the city,

which is not explained in the Mishna,

was necessary

for Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi to teach us,

as it was not taught

in the Mishna.

Rav Naḥman said:

Whether

the one who teaches, “the residents

of a small city may walk throughout the entire large city” [as Rav Idi taught]—

is not mistaken.

His version is not erroneous.

And

whether

the one who teaches, “the residents

of a small city may not walk throughout the entire large city”—

is not mistaken.

The one who teaches, “the residents

of a small city may walk throughout the entire large city,”

is not mistaken—

because he explains it as referring to one who places

his eruv there, in which case he acquires the entire city.

And the one who teaches, “the residents

of a small city may not walk throughout the entire large city,”

is not mistaken—

because he explains it as referring to one who measures.

But the Mishna is lacking

a clause,

and this is what it teaches:

“The residents of a large city may walk throughout the entire small city, but the residents of a small city may not walk throughout the entire large city.”

When are these words stated?—

With regard to one who measures.

With regard to one who measures.

But if one was in a large city and placed his eruv in a small city,

or if he

was in a small city and placed his eruv in a large city—

he may walk throughout the entire city

of his eruv,

and

measure

two thousand cubits beyond it.

Rav Yosef said that Rami bar Abba said that Rav Huna said: “A city situated on the bank of a river,”

which is deep, making it dangerous to live nearby if there is no barrier along the river—

if

there is a narrow embankment in front of it

that is a wall

four

cubits high, it is considered a city. Therefore,

its

city limit is measured

from the bank of the river.

But if not,

if there is no such barrier, the settlement of the city is not considered a city; rather, its residents are considered like inhabitants of isolated huts. Therefore,

its measure begins only from the entrance of each resident’s house,

of each of its inhabitants.

Abaye said

to Rav Yosef [gently]:

“An embankment

that is

four cubits high—you told us this concerning it.”

We inquire:

What is different

about this embankment, whose measure is four cubits,

from all other embankments, whose

measure is

four

handbreadths בלבד?

He said to him,

Rav Yosef to Abaye:

“There, its use is not urgent.

Here,

on the bank of the river,

its use is urgent.”

Rav Yosef said: “From where do I say this?”

That a dangerous place is not considered a city?

As it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi permitted that the residents

of the city of

Geder,

which is situated at the upper part of the mountain,

may descend to

the city of

Ḥamten,

which is situated in the middle of the mountain’s slope,

but the residents of Ḥamten may not ascend to Geder.

What is the reason

for distinguishing between them?

Is it not because these people,

the residents of Geder,

constructed an embankment

to protect themselves from the danger of the mountain slope?

Therefore, they are considered residents of a city, whose measure is taken from the city wall and not from their homes, and consequently they can reach Ḥamten.

But

these people,

the residents of Ḥamten,

did not construct an embankment,

and since it is dangerous to live in such a place, they are not considered residents of a city, but rather like inhabitants of isolated huts, whose measure is taken from their homes. Therefore, they cannot reach the city of Geder.

When Rav Dimi came, he said: “They used to attack them repeatedly;”

they would harm

the residents of Geder when the residents of Ḥamten

came to the city of the residents of Geder.

And what

does the expression

“Rabbi permitted that the residents of Geder may descend to Ḥamten, but that the residents of Ḥamten may not ascend to Geder” mean? —

Rabbi instituted

that the residents of Ḥamten may not ascend to Geder, so that the residents of Geder would not harm them there.

And what is different

about the fact that he instituted this specifically on

Shabbat,

when they may not ascend there?

Because

drunkenness is common there,

and then they attack them.

We inquire: If so,

when the residents of Geder go

to

there,

to Ḥamten,

they will also attack them.

They will harm them.

And we answer with a proverb:

“A dog away from its home

—a dog that is not in its own city—

for seven years

does not bark.”

does not bark.”

That is, they do not attack when they are in another city.

We still inquire: If we say that they do not use their power in another city,

now too

we should be concerned about the opposite possibility, that

they will attack

and harm

the residents of Ḥamten the residents of Geder,

as revenge for their attacking them.

And we answer:

“All this”

they will not be subdued by them;

the residents of Geder who come to Ḥamten will not allow the residents of Ḥamten to harm them.

Rav Safra said:

Ḥamten

was a city shaped like a bow.

The distance between its two ends was greater than four thousand cubits. Therefore, the residents living in the arc of the bow are measured only from their homes.

The entire city of Ḥamten was enclosed within the Shabbat limit of the residents of Geder. Therefore, the residents of Geder could walk throughout the entire city of Ḥamten. But the residents of Ḥamten who lived in the arc of the bow, and measured two thousand cubits from their homes, could reach only the beginning of the city of Geder; they could not enter farther into the city.

Rav Dimi bar Ḥinnana said:

The residents of Geder

were the residents of a large city, and

the residents of Ḥamten

were the residents of a small city.

Ḥamten, the small city, was entirely enclosed within the Shabbat limit of Geder, and Rabbi stated that Ḥamten should be considered for the residents of Geder as four cubits. But the residents of Ḥamten who entered the large city of Geder, whose measure ended in the middle of the city, could not continue walking through it.

Rav Taviyomi taught it this way.

As we learned.

Rav Taviyomi taught it this way:

Rav Safra and Rav Dimi bar Ḥinnana: One said, “It was a city shaped like a bow,” and one said, “It involved the residents of a small city and the residents of a large city.”

Mishna:

“The residents of a large city may walk throughout the entire small city,”

as though it were a city of four cubits, and continue measuring their limit beyond it.

“And the residents of a small city may walk throughout the entire large city.”

How so?

“If one was in a large city and placed his eruv in a small city,”

or if he was

“in a small city and placed his eruv in a large city”—

he may walk throughout the entire city and two thousand cubits beyond it.

Rabbi Akiva says: “He has only two thousand cubits from the place of his eruv.”

Rabbi Akiva said to them,

to the Sages: “Do

you not

agree with me that one who places his eruv in a cave has only the two thousand cubits from the place of his eruv, and not from the edge of the city,

two thousand cubits?”

They said to him: “When

do we say as you say?”—

When there are no residents in it.

But if there are residents in it—

he may walk throughout the entire cave

as though it were four cubits,

and

measure

two thousand cubits beyond it.

It follows that the ruling is more lenient

for one who places his eruv

inside

a cave that has residents, since he has the entire cave as four cubits,

than

for one who places his eruv

on top of it,

since he has two thousand cubits only from the place of his eruv.

And the Sages, who disagree with Rabbi Akiva concerning one who places his eruv in a cave or in another city, agree

с

with regard to one who measures,

who did not place an eruv in the cave or in the other city,

as they said

that the Sages

“give two thousand cubits”

from his city or from the place where he placed his eruv—

even if the end of his measure falls within a cave,

even a cave that has residents, he may not continue walking beyond the end of his measure.