Eruvin

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 question1 on the subject] from Rab Judah and the latter did not answer him?2 — But according to your view3 [would not the following objection arise:] In view of4 Mar Zutra's exposition in the name of R. Huna5 that the halachah is that one fasting [on a Sabbath eve] must complete the fast, why, when4 Rabbah asked [a question on the subject]1 from R. Huna did not the latter6 answer him? But [you would no doubt reply:] That question was asked4 before [R. Huna] heard the ruling7 while his statement8 was made4 after he had heard it;7 so also here [one might explain] that the question was asked4 before [Rab Judah] heard it7 while his statement9 was made after he heard it’,7 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,10 OR AN EVIL SPIRIT,11 HAVE TAKEN OUT [BEYOND THE PERMITTED SABBATH LIMIT] HAS NO MORE THAN FOUR CUBITS [IN WHICH TO MOVE].12 IF HE WAS BROUGHT BACK13 [HE IS REGARDED] AS IF HE HAD NEVER GONE OUT.14 IF HE WAS TAKEN TO ANOTHER TOWN,15 OR IF HE WAS PUT IN A CATTLE-PEN OR IN A CATTLE-FOLD,16 HE MAY, RULED R. GAMALIEL AND R. ELEAZAR B. AZARIAH, MOVE THROUGH THE WHOLE OF ITS AREA;17 BUT R. JOSHUA AND R. AKIBA RULED: HE HAS ONLY FOUR CUBITS [IN WHICH TO MOVE]. IT ONCE HAPPENED THAT THEY18 WERE COMING FROM BRINDISI19 AND WHILE THEIR SHIP WAS SAILING20 ON THE SEA,21 R. GAMALIEL AND R. ELEAZAR. B. AZARIAH WALKED ABOUT THROUGHOUT ITS AREA,22 BUT R. JOSHUA AND R. AKIBA DID NOT MOVE BEYOND FOUR CUBITS BECAUSE THEY DESIRED TO IMPOSE A RESTRICTION UPON THEMSELVES.23 ONCE [ON A SABBATH EVE] THEY DID NOT ENTER THE HARBOUR UNTIL DUSK.24 ‘MAY WE DISEMBARK?’25 THEY ASKED R. GAMALIEL. YOU MAY’, HE TOLD THEM, ‘FOR I26 HAVE CAREFULLY OBSERVED [THE DISTANCE FROM THE SHORE AND HAVE ASCERTAINED] THAT BEFORE DUSK WE WERE ALREADY WITHIN THE SABBATH LIMIT’.27 GEMARA. Our Rabbis learned: Three things deprive28 a man of his senses and of a knowledge of his creator,29 viz.,30 idolaters, an evil spirit and oppressive poverty. In what respect could this31 matter? — In respect of invoking heavenly mercy to be delivered from them.32 Three kinds of person do not see the face of Gehenna, viz.,30 [one who suffers from] oppressive poverty, one who is afflicted with bowel diseases, and [one who is in the hands of] the [Roman] government;33 and some say: Also he who has a bad wife. And the other?34 — It is a duty to divorce a bad wife.35 And the other?36 — It may sometimes happen that her kethubah37 amounts to a large sum,38 or else, that he has children from her and is, therefore, unable to divorce her. In what practical respect does this39 matter? — In respect of receiving [these afflictions] lovingly.40 Three [classes of person] die even while they are conversing,41 viz.,30 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 out42 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 he43 returned deliberately44 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]?45 — 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 informed46 [that the second clause is the conclusion of the first]. An enquiry was addressed to Rabbah: What is the ruling where a man47 had to attend to his needs? — Human dignity,48 he replied, is so important that it supersedes a negative precept of the Torah.49 The Nehardeans remarked: If he50 is intelligent he enters into his original Sabbath limit and, once he has entered it, he may remain there. 51 R. Papa said: Fruits that were carried52 beyond the Sabbath limit53 and were returned [on the same day], even if this was done intentionally, do not lose their original place.54 What is the reason? — They were carried under compulsion.55 R. Joseph b. Shemaiah raised an objection against R. Papa: R. Nehemiah and R. Eliezer b. Jacob ruled, [The fruits]56 are always forbidden57 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,58 but not [if they are returned] deliberately?59 — On this question Tannas differ. For it was taught: Fruits that were carried52 beyond the Sabbath limit unwittingly may be eaten,60 [if they were carried] wittingly they may not be eaten; reported the ruling in the name of Rab (v. loc. cit.) would, surely, have been able to give Rabbah an answer. insane man) he recovered. cubits. stated supra, one may freely move. were not sure whether they may or may not move beyond four cubits. towers along the coast, and by directing his instrument to the tops of them he was able to calculate the distance). ruling? XVII, 11), ‘sentence’ or ‘the word’ rcsv being applied to any enactment of the Rabbis. As the laws of the Sabbath limits which are only Rabbinical derive their force from this precept they also may be superseded wherever their absence would involve any loss of human dignity (Rashi); v. Ber. 19b. directions. eaten on the spot where they were deposited. carried back deliberately?