עירובין 52

52:1

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

—

52:2

In agreement with whose view did he act? Was it in agreement with that of R. Joseph according to R. Jose son of R. Judah? No; in agreement with Rabbah according to R.Judah. R. MEIR RULED: WHOSOEVER IS ABLE TO PREPARE AN ‘ERUB etc. Have we not already learnt this once: If this is doubtful, the man, said R. Meir and R. Judah, [is in the position of both] an ass-driver and a camel-driver? — R. Shesheth replied: Do not say that R. Meir's view is that only where it is doubtful whether a man had a valid ‘erub or not is he in the position of an ass-driver and a camel-driver and that where it is certain that he prepared no ‘erub he is not in such a position; but rather even where it is certain that he prepared no ‘erub he is in the position of an ass-driver and camel-driver; for here, surely, it is a case where It is certain that the man had prepared no ‘erub and yet he is put in the position of an ass-driver and a camel-driver. MISHNAH. HE WHO WENT OUT BEYOND HIS SABBATH LIMIT EVEN ONLY A DISTANCE OF ONE CUBIT MUST NOT RE-ENTER. R. ELIEZER RULED: [IF A MAN WALKED] TWO CUBITS BEYOND HIS SABBATH LIMIT HE MAY RE-ENTER, [AND IF HE WALKED] THREE CUBITS HE MAY NOT RE-ENTER. GEMARA. R. Hanina ruled: If a man had one foot within his Sabbath limit and his other foot without that Sabbath limit, he may not re-enter, for it is written in Scripture: If thou turn away thy foot from the sabbath, the written form being ‘thy foot’. But was It not taught: If a man had one foot within his Sabbath limit and his other foot without, he may re-enter? — This represents the view of ‘Others’. For it was taught: Others maintain that a man is deemed to be where the greater part of his body is. Some there are who read: R. Hanina ruled: If a man had one foot within his Sabbath limit and his other foot without, he may re-enter, for it is written in Scripture: If thou turn away thy foot from Sabbath which is read as ‘thy feet’. But was it not taught: He may not re-enter? — He maintains the same view as ‘Others’, it having been taught: A man is deemed to be where the greater part of his body is. R. ELIEZER RULED: [IF A MAN WALKED)] TWO CUBITS BEYOND HIS SABBATH LIMIT HE MAY RE-ENTER [AND IF HE WALKED] THREE CUBITS HE MAY NOT RE-ENTER. But was it not taught: R. Eliezer ruled: If he walked one cubit beyond his Sabbath limit he may re-enter and if two cubits he may not reenter? — This is no difficulty, since the former refers to a person who left the first cubit but was still within the second, while the latter refers to one who left the second and was within the third. But was it not taught: R — Eliezer ruled: Even if he was one cubit beyond his Sabbath limit he may not re-enter? — This was taught concerning a measurer, for we have in fact learnt: And to the measurer of whom the Rabbis have spoken a distance of two thousand cubits only is allowed even if the end of his permitted measure terminated within a cave. MISHNAH. IF A MAN WAS OVERTAKEN BY DUSK WHEN ONLY ONE CUBIT OUTSIDE THE SABBATH LIMIT, HE MAY NOT ENTER IT. R. SIMEON RULED: EVEN IF HE WAS FIFTEEN CUBITS AWAY HE MAY ENTER SINCE THE SURVEYORS DO NOT MEASURE EXACTLY ON ACCOUNT OF THOSE WHO ERR. GEMARA. It was taught: On account of those who err in their measures. MISHNAH. HOW ARE THE SABBATH BOUNDARIES TO TOWNS EXTENDED? IF ONE HOUSE RECEDES AND ANOTHER PROJECTS, IF ONE TURRET [OF THE WALL] RECEDES AND ANOTHER PROJECTS, IF THERE WERE RUINS TEN HANDBREADTHS HIGH,

—