Eruvin 61a (סא.) — the Talmud in English

As we learned below:

“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”

as though it were four cubits; rather, the measurement of the city is counted for them in the measurement of their Shabbat limit in its entirety.

What is the reason

for the Mishna’s distinction between the residents of the large city and the residents of the small city?

Is it not because these,

the residents of the small city,

have their measurement end in the middle of the large city,

and therefore it is not considered for them as four cubits, in accordance with the first ruling stated by Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi?

And these,

the residents of the large city,

have their measurement end at the edge of the small city,

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

If so, this presents a difficulty for Rav Idi, who characterized the words of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi as “words of prophecy,” and it is also a difficulty for Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, since his words have already been stated 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.

Thus

Rav Idi taught

the Mishna.

And he establishes it

—the Mishna—

as referring to one who places

his eiruv in the other city. For by placing an eiruv, one acquires the entire city as though it were four cubits, and measures the limit beyond the city.

But one who measures,

who did not place an eiruv,

we did not learn

this in our Mishna, and from the Mishna we do not know of a distinction between a case in which his measurement ends at the edge of the city and one in which it ends in the middle of the city.

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

For according to the way he established the Mishna—as referring to one who places his eiruv in a city and not to one who measures—Rabbi Yehoshua introduced the ruling concerning one who measures.

And we raise an objection:

And

if

not,

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

But we learned

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

“And concerning the one who measures, as they said,

the Sages

give him two thousand cubits,”

this law applies

even if the end of his measurement terminates in a cave,

in which case he may not continue walking through it.

And we answer: The law concerning a measurement that ends at the

edge of the city,

which is not explained in the Mishna,

was necessary for him—

for Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi—to teach us,

as we did not learn

it 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 did Rav Idi]—

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 establishes it as referring to one who places

his eiruv, in which case he acquired 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 establishes it as referring to one who measures.

And the Mishna is incomplete,

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.

But one who was in a large city and placed his eiruv in a small city

or who

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

may walk throughout all of it,

the other city,

and

measure

two thousand cubits beyond it.

Rav Yosef said that Rami bar Abba said that Rav Huna said: With regard to a city situated on the bank of a river,

which is deep, and it is dangerous to live beside it if there is no fence along the river:

If

there is a dike in front of it

that is a wall of

four

cubits in height, it is considered a city, and therefore

its

city limit is measured

from the bank of the river.

But if not,

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

its measurement is made only from the entrance of each person’s home,

of each of its residents.

Abaye said to Rav Yosef

[gently]:

A dike

four cubits

in height—you told us concerning it.

And we considered the matter:

What is different

about this dike, whose measure is four cubits,

from all other dikes, whose

measure is

four

handbreadths בלבד?

He said to him,

Rav Yosef to Abaye:

There, ordinary use is not needed.

Here,

on the bank of the river,

ordinary use is needed.

Rav Yosef said: From where do I say

this ruling—that a dangerous place is not considered a city?

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

the city

of Geder,

who are located on the upper part of the mountain,

to descend to

the city of

Ḥamat,

which is located midway down the mountain’s slope, but

the residents of Ḥamat may not ascend to Geder.

What is the reason

for distinguishing between them?

Is it not because these,

the residents of Geder,

made a dike

to protect themselves from the danger of the mountain slope?

Therefore, they are considered residents of a city, whose measurement is made from the city wall and not from their homes, and consequently they can reach Ḥamat.

But

these,

the residents of Ḥamat,

did not make a dike,

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

When Rav Dimi arrived, he said: “They would attack them”

—they would harm

the residents of Geder [when they came to the city of the residents of Ḥamat].

When the residents of Ḥamat came to the city of the residents of Geder.

And what is the meaning of

“Rabbi permitted

the residents of Geder to descend to Ḥamat, but did not permit the residents of Ḥamat to ascend to Geder”— -

Rabbi instituted

that the residents of Ḥamat should 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,

that they should not ascend there?

Because

drunkenness is common there,

and then they attack them.

And we consider the matter: If so,

when the residents of Geder go

to

there,

to Ḥamat,

they too will be attacked,

they will be harmed.

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.”

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

We nevertheless consider the matter: If we say that they do not use their power in another city,

even now,

we should be concerned about the opposite possibility, that

they will attack,

will harm

the residents of Ḥamat [and] the residents of Geder,

as revenge for the latter attacking them.

And we answer:

“All this”—

they are not subdued,

for the residents of Geder who come to Ḥamat will not allow the residents of Ḥamat to attack them.

Rav Safra said:

Ḥamat

was a city shaped like a bow.

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

The entire city of Ḥamat was encompassed within the limit of the residents of Geder, and therefore the residents of Geder could walk throughout the entire city of Ḥamat. But the residents of Ḥamat, 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 and could not continue into the city.

Rav Dimi bar Ḥinnana said:

The residents of Geder

were the residents of a large city, and

the residents of Ḥamat

were the residents of a small city.

Ḥamat, the small city, was entirely contained within the limit of Geder, and Rabbi stated that Ḥamat should be considered for the residents of Geder as four cubits. But the residents of Ḥamat, who entered the large city of Geder, had their measurement end in the middle of the city and could not continue walking through it.

Rav Tavyomi taught it this way.

As we learned.

Rav Tavyomi taught it this way:

Rav Safra and Rav Dimi bar Ḥinnana: One said: “It was a city shaped like a bow,” and one said: “They were 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 their measurement beyond it.

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

How so?

“One who was in a large city and placed his eiruv in a small city,

or one who was

in a small city and placed his eiruv in a large city—

may walk throughout all of it and two thousand cubits beyond it.

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

Rabbi Akiva said to them,

to the Sages: “Do

you not

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

[and not] two thousand cubits?”

They said to him: “When

do we say as you say?—

When there are no dwellings in it.

But if there are dwellings in it—

he may walk throughout all of it

as though it were four cubits,

and

measure

two thousand cubits beyond it.”

It follows that lenient

is the ruling of one who places his eiruv

inside

a cave in which there are dwellings, since he has the entire cave as four cubits,

than

that of one who places his eiruv

on top of it,

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

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

the Sages concede, who differ with Rabbi Akiva concerning one who places an eruv in a cave or in another town,

with regard to one who measures,

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

that they said

the Sages that they

“give two thousand cubits”

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

even if the end of his measurement terminates in a cave,

even in a cave in which there are dwellings, he may not continue walking beyond the end of the measurement.