עירובין 61

61:1

but the people of the small town may not walk through the whole of a large town. Now what is the reason? Obviously because the measure of the latter terminated in the middle of the former town, while that of the former terminated at the end of the latter town. And R. Idi? — He read in both cases ‘The people may’ and expounded [the Mishnah cited] as referring to an ‘erub that one deposited; but of the case of one who was measuring, we have there learnt nothing. Have we not indeed? Did we not as a matter of fact learn: And to the measure 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? — His ruling was required in respect of a Sabbath limit that terminated at the far end of a town, a case of which we did not learn. R. Nahman stated: He who learns ‘The people may’ is not in error, and he who learns ‘the people may not’ not in error. ‘He who learns "the people may" is not in error since he might explain it to refer to an ‘erub that one had deposited; while ‘he who learns "the people may not is not in error’ since he might explain that it refers to a case where the Sabbath limit was being measured, and that a clause is missing [from the Mishnah] which should properly read thus: The people of a large town may walk through the whole of a small town but the people of the small town may not walk through the whole of the large town. This, however, applies only to a case where the Sabbath limit was being measured, but if a man stayed in a larger town and deposited his ‘erub in a smaller town or if he stayed in a small town and deposited his ‘erub in a large town he may walk through the whole of the town and a distance of two thousand cubits beyond it. R. Joseph citing Rami b. Abba who had it from R. Huna ruled: If a town was situated on the edge of a ravine, and there was a barrier four cubits in height in front of it, its Sabbath limit is measured from the edge of the ravine, otherwise measuring must begin from the door of every inhabitant's house. Said Abaye to him: You told us in connection with this that the barrier must be four cubits in height; but why should this one be different from all other barriers whose prescribed height is only four handbreadths? — There, the other replied, the use of the place involves no fear, but the use of the place here does involve fear. Said R. Joseph, whence do I derive this ruling? From what was taught: Rabbi permitted the inhabitants of Gader to go down to Hamethan but did not allow the inhabitants of Hamethan to go up to Gader. Now what could have been the reason? Obviously, that the former did put lip a barrier while the latter did not put up a barrier. When R. Dimi came he explained: The people of Gader used to molest the people of Hamethan, and ‘permitted’ meant ordained’. Then why should Sabbath be different from other days? — Because intoxication is not uncommon on such a day. Would they not molest them when they come there? — No; a dog in a strange town does not bark for seven years. Now then, might not the people of Hamethan molest those of Gader? — No; they were not so submissive as all that. R. Safra explained: Gader was a town that was built in the shape of a bow. R. Dimi b. Hinena explained: The former were the inhabitants of a large town while the latter were inhabitants of a small town. Thus taught R. Kahana. R. Tabyomi, however, taught as follows: R. Safra and R. Dimi b. Hinena differ, one explaining that Gader was a town built in the shape of a bow while the other explains that the latter were the inhabitants of a small town while the former were inhabitants of a large town. MISHNAH. THE PEOPLE OF A LARGE TOWN MAY WALK THROUGH THE WHOLE OF A SMALL TOWN, AND THE PEOPLE OF A SMALL TOWN MAY WALK THROUGH THE WHOLE OF A LARGE TOWN. HOW IS THIS [To BE UNDERSTOOD]? IF A MAN STAYED IN A LARGE TOWN AND DEPOSITED HIS ‘ERUB IN A SMALl TOWN OR IF HE STAYED IN A SMALL TOWN AND DEPOSITED HIS ‘ERUB IN A LARGE TOWN, HE MAY WALK THROUGH ALL THE TOWN AND TWO THOUSAND CUBITS BEYOND IT. R. AKIBA RULED: HE IS ALLOWED TO WALK NO FURTHER THAN TWO THOUSAND CUBITS FROM THE PLACE OF HIS ‘ERUB. SAID R. AKIBA TO THEM: DO YOU NOT AGREE WITH ME THAT IF A MAN DEPOSITED HIS ‘ERUB IN A CAVE HE MAY WALK NO FURTHER THAN TWO THOUSAND CUBITS FROM THE PLACE OF HIS ‘ERUB? THEY REPLIED: WHEN IS THIS THE CASE? ONLY WHERE NO PEOPLE DWELL THEREIN BUT WHERE PEOPLE DWELL THEREIN ONE MAY WALK THROUGH THE WHOLE OF IT AND TWO THOUSAND CUBITS BEYOND IT. THUS IT FOLLOWS THAT [WHERE AN ‘ERUB IS DEPOSITED] WITHIN IT THE LAW IS MORE LENIENT THAN [WHERE ONE IS DEPOSITED] ON THE TOP OF IT. AND TO THE MEASURER, OF WHOM [THE RABBIS] HAVE SPOKEN A DISTANCE OF TWO THOUSAND CUBITS IS ALLOWED EVEN IF THE END OF HIS [PERMITTED] MEASURE TERMINATED WITHIN A CAVE.67

—

61:2

GEMARA. Rab Judah laid down in the name of Samuel: If a man spent the Sabbath in a deserted town, he may, according to the Rabbis, walk through the whole of it and two thousand cubits beyond it. If, however, he deposited his ‘erub in a deserted town he is allowed no more than a distance of two thousand cubits from the place of his ‘erub. R. Eleazar laid down: Whether a man spent the Sabbath in a town or deposited in it his ‘erub he is permitted to walk through the whole of it and two thousand cubits beyond. An objection was raised: SAID R. AKIBA TO THEM, DO YOU NOT AGREE WITH ME THAT IF A MAN DEPOSITED HIS ‘ERUB IN A CAVE HE MAY WALK NO FURTHER THAN TWO THOUSAND CUBITS FROM THE PLACE OF HIS ‘ERUB? THEY REPLIED: WHEN IS THIS THE CASE? ONLY WHEN NO PEOPLE DWELL THEREIN from which it is obvious, is it not, that where NO PEOPLE DWELL THEREIN they agree with him? — By the expression. NO PEOPLE DWELL THEREIN a place was meant that was unsuitable for dwelling. Come and hear: If a man spent the Sabbath in a town, even though it was as big as Antioch, [or if he spent the Sabbath] in a cave, though it was like the cave of Zedekiah the king of Judah. he may walk through the whole of it and two thousand cubits beyond. Now the town mentioned must be one that is in a condition similar to that of the ‘cave’, so that as the cave is one that is deserted so must the town also be one that is deserted and yet it was stated that only if a man spent the Sabbath in it is the law applicable but not where he only deposited his ‘erub in it. Now whose view could this represent? If it be suggested: It is that of R. Akiba, the difficulty would arise: What was the point in speaking of a deserted town when the same ruling applies also to one that is inhabited. Consequently it must be said to represent the view of the Rabbis. Now is not the reason for the ruling that the man spent the Sabbath in it, but if he had only deposited his ‘erub in it this ruling would not have applied? — Do not say that the ‘town’ mentioned must be one that is in a condition similar to that of the ‘cave’ but rather, the ‘cave must be one that is in a condition similar to that of the town; so that as the town is inhabited the cave also must be one that is inhabited; and this ruling is that of R. Akiba who laid down: HE IS ALLOWED TO WALK NO FURTHER THAN TWO THOUSAND CUBITS FROM THE PLACE OF HIS ‘ERUB, while in the case of one who had spent the Sabbath within the town he agrees with the Rabbis. But was it not stated: ‘Like the cave of Zedekiah’? — Like the cave of Zedekiah [in one respect] but unlike the cave of Zedekiah [in another]. ‘Like the cave of Zedekiah’ in respect of its huge size, ‘but unlike the cave of Zedekiah’ for whereas the latter was deserted, the one referred to was inhabited. Mar Judah once came across the people of Mabrakta who were depositing their ‘erubs at the Be Agobar Synagogue. ‘Penetrate’ he said to them, ‘further into its interior, that you may be allowed to walk a greater distance’. ‘Contentious man’, said Raba to him, ‘in respect of the laws of ‘erub no one takes any notice of the ruling of R. Akiba’. MISHNAH. IF A MAN LIVES IN A COURTYARD WITH A HEATHEN OR WITH ONE WHO DOES NOT ACKNOWLEDGE THE PRINCIPLE OF ERUB, EITHER OF THEM CAUSES HIM TO BE RESTRICTED IN THE USE OF THE COURTYARD. R. ELIEZER B. JACOB RULED: NEITHER CAN RESTRICT HIM UNLESS THERE ARE TWO ISRAELITES WHO IMPOSE RESTRICTIONS UPON EACH OTHER. R. GAMALIEL RELATED: A SADDUCEE ONCE LIVED WITH US IN THE SAME ALLEY IN JERUSALEM AND FATHER TOLD US: ‘HASTEN AND CARRY OUT ALL NECESSARY ARTICLES INTO THE ALLEY BEFORE HE CARRIES OUT HIS AND THEREBY IMPOSES RESTRICTIONS UPON YOU’. R. JUDAH RELATED, [THE INSTRUCTION WAS GIVEN] IN A DIFFERENT FORM: HASTEN AND ATTEND TO YOUR REQUIREMENTS IN THE ALLEY BEFORE HE CARRIES OUT HIS ARTICLES AND THEREBY IMPOSES RESTRICTIONS UPON YOU’.58

—