עירובין 41

41:1

and, similarly, if the eve of the Ninth of Ab fell on a Sabbath a man may eat and drink as much as he requires and lay on his table a meal as big as that of Solomon in his time. If the Ninth of Ab fell on the Sabbath eve [food] of the size of an egg must be brought and eaten [before the conclusion of the day] so that one does not approach the Sabbath in a state of affliction’. It was taught: R. Judah stated: We were once sitting in the presence of R. Akiba, and the day was a Ninth of Ab that occurred on a Sabbath eve, when a lightly roasted egg was brought to him and he sipped it without any salt. And [this he did] not because he had any appetite for it but in order to show the students what the halachah was. R. Jose, however, ruled: The fast must be fully concluded. ‘Do you not agree with the’, said R. Jose to them, ‘that when the Ninth of Ab falls on a Sunday one must break off while it is yet day?’ — ‘Indeed [it is so]’, they replied. ‘What’, he said to them, ‘is the difference between beginning the Sabbath when one is in a state of affliction and between letting it out when one is in such a state?’ ‘If you allowed a person’, they replied: ‘to let it out [when in such a state] because he has eaten and drunk throughout the day, would you also allow a person to begin it when in a state of affliction, though he has not eaten or drunk all day?’ And in connection with this Ulla ruled: The halachah agrees with R. Jose. But do we act in agreement with the view of R. Jose seeing that such action would be contradictory to the following rulings: No fast day may be imposed upon the public on New Moons, Hanukkah or Purim, but if they began [the period of fasting prior to these days] there is no need to interrupt it; so R. Gamaliel. Said R. Meir: Although R. Gamaliel laid down that ‘there is no need to interrupt it’, he agrees nevertheless that [the fasts on these days] must not be concluded, and the same ruling applies to the Ninth of Ab that falls on a Sabbath eve. And it was further taught: After the death of R. Gamaliel, R. Joshua entered [the academy] to abrogate his ruling, when R. Johanan b. Nuri stood up and exclaimed: ‘I submit that "the body must follow the head"; throughout the lifetime of R. Gamaliel we laid down the halachah in agreement with his view and now you wish to abrogate it? Joshua, we shall not listen to you, since the halachah has once been fixed in agreement with R. Gamaliel!’ And there was not a single person who raised any objection whatever to this statement. — In the time of R. Gamaliel the people acted in agreement with the views of R. Gamaliel but in the time of R. Jose they acted in agreement with the views of R. Jose. But [could it be maintained] that ‘in the time of R. Gamaliel the people acted in agreement with the view of R. Gamaliel’? Was it not in fact taught: R. Eleazar son of R. Zadok stated: ‘I am one of the descendants of Seneab of the tribe of Benjamin. Once it happened that the Ninth of Ab fell on a Sabbath and we postponed it to the following Sunday when we fasted but did not complete the fast because that day was our festival.’ The reason [then was] that [the day had been their] festival, but on the eve of [their] festival they did complete the fast, did they not? Rabina replied: A festival of Rabbinic origin is different [from a Sabbath]. Since it is permitted to fast for a number of hours on the former it is also permitted to complete a fast on its eves; [but as regards] the Sabbath, since it is forbidden to fast on it even for a few hours, it is also forbidden to complete a fast on its eves. ‘I have never heard’, said R. Joseph, ‘that tradition’, Said Abaye to him, ‘You yourself have told it to us and you said it in connection with the following: "No fast may be imposed upon the public on New Moons etc." and it was in connection with this that you told us, "Rab Judah said in the name of Rab: This is the view of R. Meir who laid it down in the name of R. Gamaliel; but the Sages ruled: One must complete the fast". Now does not this refer to all the days mentioned? — No; only to Hanukkah and Purim. This may also be supported by a process of reasoning

—

41:2

for if it could have been presumed that the reference is to all the days mentioned [the objection would arise:] Did not Rabbah ask [a question on the subject] from Rab Judah and the latter did not answer him? — But according to your view [would not the following objection arise:] In view of Mar Zutra's exposition in the name of R. Huna that the halachah is that one fasting [on a Sabbath eve] must complete the fast, why, when Rabbah asked [a question on the subject] from R. Huna did not the latter answer him? But [you would no doubt reply:] That question was asked before [R. Huna] heard the ruling while his statement was made after he had heard it; so also here [one might explain] that the question was asked before [Rab Judah] heard it while his statement was made after he heard it’, Mar Zutra made the following exposition in the name of R. Huna: The halachah is [that those] fasting [on a Sabbath eve] must complete the fast. MISHNAH. HE WHOM GENTILES, OR AN EVIL SPIRIT, HAVE TAKEN OUT [BEYOND THE PERMITTED SABBATH LIMIT] HAS NO MORE THAN FOUR CUBITS [IN WHICH TO MOVE]. IF HE WAS BROUGHT BACK [HE IS REGARDED] AS IF HE HAD NEVER GONE OUT. IF HE WAS TAKEN TO ANOTHER TOWN, OR IF HE WAS PUT IN A CATTLE-PEN OR IN A CATTLE-FOLD, HE MAY, RULED R. GAMALIEL AND R. ELEAZAR B. AZARIAH, MOVE THROUGH THE WHOLE OF ITS AREA; BUT R. JOSHUA AND R. AKIBA RULED: HE HAS ONLY FOUR CUBITS [IN WHICH TO MOVE]. IT ONCE HAPPENED THAT THEY WERE COMING FROM BRINDISI AND WHILE THEIR SHIP WAS SAILING ON THE SEA, R. GAMALIEL AND R. ELEAZAR. B. AZARIAH WALKED ABOUT THROUGHOUT ITS AREA, BUT R. JOSHUA AND R. AKIBA DID NOT MOVE BEYOND FOUR CUBITS BECAUSE THEY DESIRED TO IMPOSE A RESTRICTION UPON THEMSELVES. ONCE [ON A SABBATH EVE] THEY DID NOT ENTER THE HARBOUR UNTIL DUSK. ‘MAY WE DISEMBARK?’ THEY ASKED R. GAMALIEL. YOU MAY’, HE TOLD THEM, ‘FOR I HAVE CAREFULLY OBSERVED [THE DISTANCE FROM THE SHORE AND HAVE ASCERTAINED] THAT BEFORE DUSK WE WERE ALREADY WITHIN THE SABBATH LIMIT’. GEMARA. Our Rabbis learned: Three things deprive a man of his senses and of a knowledge of his creator, viz., idolaters, an evil spirit and oppressive poverty. In what respect could this matter? — In respect of invoking heavenly mercy to be delivered from them. Three kinds of person do not see the face of Gehenna, viz., [one who suffers from] oppressive poverty, one who is afflicted with bowel diseases, and [one who is in the hands of] the [Roman] government; and some say: Also he who has a bad wife. And the other? — It is a duty to divorce a bad wife. And the other? — It may sometimes happen that her kethubah amounts to a large sum, or else, that he has children from her and is, therefore, unable to divorce her. In what practical respect does this matter? — In respect of receiving [these afflictions] lovingly. Three [classes of person] die even while they are conversing, viz., one who suffers from bowel diseases, a woman in confinement, and one afflicted with dropsy. In what respect can this information matter? — In that of making arrangements for their shrouds to be ready. R. Nahman stated in the name of Samuel: If a man went out deliberately [beyond his Sabbath limit] he has only four cubits [in which to move]. Is not this obvious? If one whom gentiles have taken out has only four cubits [in which to move], is there any necessity [to mention that one who] went out deliberately [is subject to the same restriction]? — Rather read: If he returned deliberately he has only four cubits [in which to move]. Have we not, however, learnt this also: ‘IF HE WAS BROUGHT BACK by gentiles [‘HE IS REGARDED] AS IF HE HAD NEVER GONE OUT’; [from which it follows] that only if he was brought back he [is regarded] as if he had never gone out, but that if gentiles took him out and he returned of his own accord he has only four cubits? — Rather, read: If he went out of his own free will and was brought back by gentiles he has only four cubits [in which to move]. But have we not learnt this also: WHOM . . . HAVE TAKEN OUT and HE WAS BROUGHT BACK [HE IS REGARDED] AS IF HE HAD NEVER GONE OUT, [from which it is evident] that only he whom gentiles have taken out and also brought back [is regarded] as if he had never gone out, but that a man who went out of his own free will is not [so regarded]? — It might have been assumed that our Mishnah deals with two disconnected instances: [i] HE WHOM THE GENTILES . . . HAVE TAKEN OUT and he has returned on his own HAS NO MORE THAN FOUR CUBITS; but [ii] if he went out on his own and WAS BROUGHT BACK by gentiles [HE IS REGARDED] AS IF HE HAD NEVER GONE OUT. Hence we were informed [that the second clause is the conclusion of the first]. An enquiry was addressed to Rabbah: What is the ruling where a man had to attend to his needs? — Human dignity, he replied, is so important that it supersedes a negative precept of the Torah. The Nehardeans remarked: If he is intelligent he enters into his original Sabbath limit and, once he has entered it, he may remain there. R. Papa said: Fruits that were carried beyond the Sabbath limit and were returned [on the same day], even if this was done intentionally, do not lose their original place. What is the reason? — They were carried under compulsion. R. Joseph b. Shemaiah raised an objection against R. Papa: R. Nehemiah and R. Eliezer b. Jacob ruled, [The fruits] are always forbidden unless they are unintentionally returned to their original place; [from which it follows, does it not, that only if they are returned] unintentionally is this law applicable, but not [if they are returned] deliberately? — On this question Tannas differ. For it was taught: Fruits that were carried beyond the Sabbath limit unwittingly may be eaten, [if they were carried] wittingly they may not be eaten;

—