Parallel
עירובין 52:1
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
by declaring, ‘Let my Sabbath base be at Zinatha’. Said Abaye to him, ‘What do you think? That in a dispute between R. Meir and R. Judah the halachah is in agreement with R. Judah, and that R. Hisda submitted that they differed only where the expression used was, ‘In such and such a place’? Surely [it may be objected: Does not] R. Nahman [differ from R. Hisda], and it was taught in agreement with him? — ‘I withdraw’, the other replied. Rami b. Hama enquired: Behold, it has been laid down that if a man acquired a Sabbath base in person he is entitled to move within four cubits, is one who deposits his ‘erub also entitled to move within four cubits or not? — Raba replied: Come and hear: THE RABBIS’ ENACTMENT THAT AN ‘erub IS TO BE PREPARED WITH BREAD HAVING THE ONLY PURPOSE OF MAKING IT EASIER FOR THE RICH MAN SO THAT HE SHAll NOT BE COMPELLED TO GO OUT HIMSELF AND MAKE THE ERUB WITH HIS FEET. Now if you were to contend that he is not entitled to the four cubits, [how can it state its purpose to be] ‘OF MAKING IT EASIER’? Surely [it results in the imposition] of a restriction! — One is nevertheless pleased with the enactment since thereby one avoids the trouble of going out. MISHNAH. IF A MAN LEFT HIS HOME TO PROCEED TO A TOWN WITH WHICH [HIS HOME TOWN DESIRED TO BE] CONNECTED BY AN ‘ERUB, BUT A FRIEND OF HIS INDUCED HIM TO RETURN HOME, HE HIMSELF IS ALLOWED TO PROCEED TO THE OTHER TOWN BUT ALL THE OTHER TOWNSPEOPLE ARE FORBIDDEN; SO R. JUDAH. R. MEIR RULED: WHOSOEVER IS ABLE TO PREPARE AN ‘erub AND NEGLECTED TO DO IT IS IN THE POSITION OF AN ASS-DRIVER AND A CAMEL-DRIVER. GEMARA. In what respect does he differ from them? — R. Huna replied: We are here dealing with the case of a man who had, for instance, two houses between which two Sabbath limits intervened. As far as he is concerned, since he had set out on his journey he has the status of a poor man. They, however, have the status of rich men. So it was also taught: If a man had two houses, and two Sabbath limits intervened between them, he acquires his ‘erub as soon as he had set out on his journey; so R. Judah. Relaxing the law still more, R. Jose son of R. Judah ruled: Even if a friend of his met him and said: ‘Spend the night here, as the weather is rather hot’ or ‘rather cold’, he may set out on his journey on the following day as early as he likes. Rabbah submitted: All agree that it is necessary to make [the prescribed declaration], the Only point at issue between them [being whether it is essential for the man] to have actually set out on his journey. R. Joseph, however, submitted: That it is essential for the man to have set out on his journey is disputed by none, the Only point at issue between them being whether it is necessary for him to make [the prescribed declaration]. Whose view is followed in the ruling of Ulla that if a man set out on a journey and a friend of his induced him to return, behold he is regarded as having returned and as having set out? (But if he is regarded as ‘having returned’ why is he described as ‘having set out’? And if he is regarded as ‘having set out’ why is he described as ‘having returned’? — It is this that was meant: Although he has actually returned he is regarded as one who had set out). Now in agreement with whose view has this statement been made? — In agreement with that of R. Joseph according to R. Jose son of R. Judah. R. Judah b. Ishtatha once brought a basket of fruit to R. Nathan b. Oshaia. When the former was departing the latter allowed him to descend the stairs and then called after him, ‘Spend the night here’. On the following day he got up early and departed.41
—