עירובין 42 — Soncino English Talmud

¹while R. Nehemiah ruled: If they are in their original place they may be eaten but if they are not in their original place they may not be eaten. Now what [are the circumstances under which they came to be] in their original place? If it be suggested that they were in their original place through some intentional act, surely [it could be retorted] was it not specifically taught: ‘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] intentionally? Must we not then admit that they [came to be] in their original place through some unintentional act, and that some words are missing, the correct reading being as follows: Fruits that were carried outside the Sabbath limit unwittingly may be eaten, but if they were carried wittingly they may not be eaten. This applies only where they are not in their original place but if they were in their original place they may be eaten even if they were carried intentionally. And in connection with this R. Nehemiah came to lay down that even when they are in their original place the law applies only where they were carried unwittingly but not when it was done wittingly? — No; if they are in their original place through an intentional act no one disputes the ruling that they are forbidden, but the difference of opinion here is [one regarding fruits] that are not in their original place through an unintentional act. The first Tanna is of the opinion that if they are not in their original place through an unintentional act they are permitted while R. Nehemiah maintains that even [if they were carried] unintentionally they are permitted only in their original place but not where they are not in their original place. Since, however, it was stated in the final clause, ‘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 that only if they’ are returned [unintentionally is this law applicable but not [if they are returned] intentionally, it may be concluded that the first Tanna is of the opinion that [the fruits] are permitted even [if they are returned] intentionally. This is conclusive. R. Nahman stated in the name of Samuel: If a man was walking and did not know where the Sabbath limit ended he may walk a distance of two thousand moderate paces; and this constitutes for him the Sabbath limit. R. Nahman further stated in the name of Samuel: If a man took up his Sabbath abode in a valley around which gentiles put up a fence on the Sabbath, he may only walk a two thousand cubits distance in all directions but may move objects throughout all the valley by throwing them, but R. Huna ruled: He may walk the two thousand cubits but may move objects within four cubits only. But why should he not be allowed to move objects throughout all its area by throwing them? — He might be drawn after his object. Then why should he not be allowed to move objects in the usual way within the two thousand cubits? Because the [area in which he is permitted to walk] is like a partition along the full width of which a breach was made towards a place into which it is forbidden to carry anything from it. Hiyya b. Rab ruled: He may walk the two thousand cubits and may also move objects within these two thousand cubits. In agreement with whose view? Is it neither in agreement with that of Rab nor with that of R. Huna? — Read: He may move objects within four cubits. If so, is not his ruling identical with that of R. Huna? — Read: And so ruled Hiyya b. Rab. Said R. Nahman to R. Huna: Do not dispute the view of Samuel since in a Baraitha it was taught in agreement with his view. For it was taught:^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ

^ᵃnote:Sc. if they were brought back.
^ᵇnote:I.e., if they remained outside their original Sabbath limit.
^ᶜnote:Of which R. Nehemiah spoke.
^ᵈnote:Supra 41b ad fin.
^ᵉnote:Loc. cit. q.v. notes.
^ᶠnote:It may thus be shown that R. Papa's ruling forms a question in dispute between R. Nehemiah and the first Tanna and that the latter who ruled that ‘if they were in their original place they may be eaten even if they were carried intentionally’ upholds the same view as R. Papa.
^ᵍnote:Not even the first Tanna.
^ʰnote:Between the first Tanna and R. Nehemiah.
^ⁱnote:Lit., ‘yes’, that they are permitted.
^ʲnote:If, however, this interpretation is adopted the objection would arise: How could R. Papa whose view cannot be traced to any Tanna differ from the rulings of both the Tannas mentioned?
^ᵏnote:Emphasis on ‘always’.
^ˡnote:Lit., ‘yes’, that they are permitted.
^ᵐnote:To their original place. Had he agreed with R. Nehemiah that intentional carriage renders the fruits forbidden even where they are thereby returned to their original place, and had he differed from him and R. Eliezer b. Jacob on one point only (that of unintentional carriage where the fruits are not in their original place), there would have been no point in the expression of ‘always’ in the latter's statement of disagreement. Hence the conclusion that the first Tanna differed from the others on two points, (a) on unintentional carriage even when the fruits are not in their original place and (b) intentional carriage where they are in their original place, his view being that the fruits are permitted even where there is only one point in favour of their permissibility, viz., either (a) unintentional carriage or (b) return to their original place. R. Nehemiah and his colleague who maintain that permissibility is invariably dependent on both (a) and (b) were, therefore, justified, when expressing their disagreement, in emphasizing that the fruits are forbidden always sc. in the absence of either (a) or (b). The objection against R. Papa whose view it has now been shown coincides with that of the first Tanna, is consequently removed.
^ⁿnote:A moderate pace is equal to one cubit.
^ᵒnote:A man is allowed a distance of two thousand cubits in all directions from any spot he had occupied when the Sabbath had set in.
^ᵖnote:For dwelling purposes. If it was not put up for any such purpose there are additional restrictions.
^ᵠnote:Cf. supra p. 291 n. 6. He may not, however, walk as far as the fence if the distance is more than two thousand cubits. An enclosure is regarded as an area of four cubits (throughout which one may move freely) only (a) where the man was within it at the time the Sabbath began or (b) where he was forcibly put into it at any time, but not where a fence was put up during the Sabbath after he had willingly taken up his Sabbath abode in the place.
^ʳnote:Even beyond two thousand cubits where he is not allowed to go.
^ˢnote:From any point to which he may walk. Within the two thousand cubits limit he may move objects in the ordinary way since the fence is valid irrespective of the time during which it was put up (cf. supra 20a).
^ᵗnote:As if there were no fence around it. Beyond the four cubits he must neither carry nor throw. The distinction between throwing and carrying applies only when one is permitted to carry but not to walk. As the carrying is permitted and the walking is forbidden, throwing was allowed. When, however, carrying is forbidden throwing also is equally forbidden.
^ᵘnote:According to R. Huna.
^ᵛnote:Since a fence that was put up on the Sabbath (cf. supra 20a) is valid.
^ʷnote:If throwing were to be allowed.
^ˣnote:Beyond the permitted two thousand cubits limit. Hence the prohibition of throwing.
^ʸnote:And much more to throw.
^ᶻnote:Within which he is permitted to walk.
^ᵃᵃnote:Sc. the distance of two thousand cubits in all directions, which is not separated from the rest of the valley by any partition whatsoever.
^ᵃᵇnote:In this case the remainder of the valley beyond the two thousand cubits.
^ᵃᶜnote:For the reason given supra that ‘he might be drawn after his object’.
^ᵃᵈnote:In the case of such a wide breach the movement of objects is forbidden even in the area where, in the absence of that breach, the movement of objects would have been permitted.
^ᵃᵉnote:Even in the usual way.
^ᵃᶠnote:But beyond these he may not even throw them.
^ᵃᵍnote:Is that of Hiyya b. Rab.
^ᵃʰnote:But if so, on what ground could his ruling be justified? If he adopts R. Huna's reason and forbids throwing of objects on the ground that ‘he might be drawn after his object’, he should also follow R. Huna's reasoning in forbidding the movement of objects within two thousand cubits because they open out to a forbidden place; and if, like R. Nahman, he does not provide against the possibility that ‘he might be drawn after his object’, throwing beyond the two thousand cubits also should be permitted.
^ᵃⁱnote:Why then was it put down in a form which suggests something new?
^ᵃʲnote:That there is no need to provide against the possibility that ‘he might be drawn after his object’, just reported in his name by R. Nahman.

²If a man was measuring [the distance from his ‘erub] and advancing [towards another town], and his measuring [of the permitted two thousand cubits] terminated in the middle of the town, he is allowed to move objects throughout the town provided only that he does not pass his Sabbath limit. Now, in what manner could he move the objects? Obviously by throwing. And R. Huna? — He can answer you: No; by pulling. R. Huna ruled: If a man was measuring [the distance from his ‘erub] and his measuring [of the permitted two thousand cubits] terminated in the middle of a courtyard he has only a half of the courtyard [in which to move]. Is not this obvious? — Read: He has a half of the courtyard [in which to move]. Is not this also obvious? — It might have been presumed that there was cause to fear that one might carry objects about all the courtyard, hence we were informed [that no such possibility need be considered]. R. Nahman stated: Huna agrees with me that if a man was measuring [the distance from his ‘erub] and was thus advancing [towards another town], and his measurement [of the two thousand cubits] terminated at [a line corresponding to] the edge of a roof he is allowed to move objects in any part of the house. What is the reason? Because [the projection of] the roof of the house would strike him. R. Huna son of R. Nathan said: [The divergence of opinion here is] like that between the following Tannas: IF HE WAS TAKEN TO ANOTHER TOWN, OR IF HE WAS PUT IN A CATTLEPEN 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. Now did not R. Gamaliel and R. Eleazar b. Azariah rule that the man may MOVE THROUGH THE WHOLE OF ITS AREA, because they do not forbid walking in a cattle-pen Or in a cattle-fold as a preventive measure against the possibility of walking in a valley, and since evidently they have not forbidden walking [in the former] as a preventive measure against walking [in the latter] they, likewise, did not forbid the moving of objects [by throwing them beyond the Sabbath limit] as a preventive measure against the possibility of walking [beyond that limit]; while R. Joshua and R. Akiba ruled: HE HAS ONLY FOUR CUBITS because they forbid walking in a cattle-pen or in a cattle-fold as a preventive measure against walking in a valley; and since evidently they have forbidden walking [in the former] as a preventive measure against walking [in the latter] they also forbid the moving of objects [by throwing them beyond the Sabbath limit] as a preventive measure against the possibility of walking [beyond that limit]? — Whence [could this be proved]? It is in fact possible that R. Gamaliel and R. Eleazar b. Azariah did not forbid walking in a cattle-pen or in a cattle-fold as a preventive measure against the possibility of walking in a valley for the sole reason that two different places are there involved, but [as regards forbidding the] movement of objects [as a preventive measure] against the possibility of walking which involves one and the same place they may well have enacted a prohibition as a preventive measure against the possibility of being drawn after one's object. As to R. Joshua and R. Akiba also, whence [could it be proved that they restricted the walking to four cubits] because they have enacted a preventive measure? — It is in fact possible that [the reason for their restriction is] that they hold the view that all the house is regarded as four cubits only while a man occupied a place within its walls while it was yet day but not where he did not occupy the place while it was yet day. Rab laid down: The law is in agreement with R. Gamaliel in respect of a cattle-pen, a cattle-fold and a ship; and Samuel laid down: The law is in agreement with R. Gamaliel in respect of a ship but not in respect of a cattle-pen or a cattle-fold. Both at any rate agree that the law is in agreement with R. Gamaliel in respect of a ship; what is the reason? — Rabbah replied: Because the man has occupied a place within its walls while it was yet day. R. Zera replied: Because the ship continually takes him from the beginning of four cubits and puts him down at the end of the four cubits. What is the practical difference between them? — The practical difference between them is the case where the sides of the ship were broken down, or where one leaps from one ship into another. But why does not R. Zera give the same reason as Rabbah? — He can answer you: The sides37^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ^ᵃᵛ^ᵃʷ^ᵃˣ^ᵃʸ^ᵃᶻ^ᵇᵃ^ᵇᵇ^ᵇᶜ^ᵇᵈ^ᵇᵉ^ᵇᶠ^ᵇᵍ^ᵇʰ^ᵇⁱ^ᵇʲ^ᵇᵏ^ᵇˡ^ᵇᵐ^ᵇⁿ^ᵇᵒ^ᵇᵖ^ᵇᵠ^ᵇʳ^ᵇˢ^ᵇᵗ^ᵇᵘ

^ᵃᵏnote:On a Sabbath if the town was provided with an ‘erub (v. Glos.); or on a festival, when carrying is permitted.
^ᵃˡnote:Sc. the distance of two thousand cubits from his ‘erub. Only for a man who has been in a town at the time the Sabbath commenced is its entire area regarded as four cubits.
^ᵃᵐnote:In that part of the town whither he is not allowed to go.
^ᵃⁿnote:Lit., ‘not?’
^ᵃᵒnote:Which confirms Samuel's view (cf. supra n. 3).
^ᵃᵖnote:MS.M. Rashi and Bah. Cur. edd., ‘Said R. Huna’.
^ᵃᵠnote:How could he differ from a Baraitha?
^ᵃʳnote:From without the Sabbath limit into it. In such a case the possibility of being drawn after the object does not arise.
^ᵃˢnote:A man, surely, may not walk beyond the two thousand cubits limit.
^ᵃᵗnote:The point of the ruling is not that the half of the courtyard outside the two thousand cubits may not, but that any point which lies within them may be used.
^ᵃᵘnote:Since that part lies within the permitted limit.
^ᵃᵛnote:Were half the yard within the Sabbath limit permitted.
^ᵃʷnote:And that in order to provide against this infringement of the law the use of all the yard should be forbidden.
^ᵃˣnote:Though he provides against the possibility that ‘he might be drawn after his object’.
^ᵃʸnote:Of a house, that stood just outside the two thousand cubits, whose wall on that side was broken down, and that thus opened out into a courtyard in which the carrying of objects was permitted.
^ᵃᶻnote:By means of throwing.
^ᵇᵃnote:Lit., ‘(is deemed to) press down’, cf. supra 9a. One could not mistake the area of the house beyond the edge of the roof to be permitted and thus to be drawn after one's object as might be the case where no such distinguishing mark existed.
^ᵇᵇnote:On the question of whether provision was made against the possibility that a man might be drawn after his object.
^ᵇᶜnote:That are enclosed by fences and into which gentiles had carried the man against his wish.
^ᵇᵈnote:Which had no fence around it and in which, as stated in the first clause of our Mishnah, one HAS NO MORE THAN FOUR CUBITS.
^ᵇᵉnote:By being drawn after the objects.
^ᵇᶠnote:As the answer is apparently in the affirmative it follows that the Tannas in our Mishnah differ on the same question as the Amoras here (cf. supra p. 294, n. 8).
^ᵇᵍnote:Cf. previous note.
^ᵇʰnote:Lit., ‘these words’.
^ᵇⁱnote:And a person is not likely to mistake the one for the other.
^ᵇʲnote:In a cattle-pen or in a cattle-fold.
^ᵇᵏnote:Against the possibility of walking in a valley.
^ᵇˡnote:Of the Sabbath eve.
^ᵇᵐnote:As the man was not in the cattle-pen or cattle-fold before the Sabbath commenced he cannot be allowed to walk beyond four cubits. Throwing, however, may well be permitted throughout the pen or the fold, since the possibility of the man's being drawn after his object is disregarded.
^ᵇⁿnote:Lit., ‘that all the world’, sc. Rab and Samuel.
^ᵇᵒnote:Of the Sabbath eve. In consequence of which, as stated supra, all the ship is regarded as four cubits.
^ᵇᵖnote:Which was in constant motion since the man was taken beyond his Sabbath limit.
^ᵇᵠnote:So that he did not rest for one moment in any particular spot. Not having acquired any four cubits as his Sabbath abode, all the ship is regarded as his home. Aliter: Whenever the man lifts up his foot the ship carries him a distance of four cubits before he can put it down, and he is, therefore, in the position of a man whom gentiles have forcibly taken out from his four cubits and put in another four cubits and who is always entitled to the last four cubits in which he finds himself (cf. Rashi s.v. u,kyub a.l.).
^ᵇʳnote:Rabbah and R. Zera.
^ᵇˢnote:Rabbah's reason does not apply while R. Zera's does.
^ᵇᵗnote:On the Sabbath. Since the man did not occupy a place in the latter ship while it was yet day he is not allowed, according to Rabbah, more than four cubits. According to R. Zera he may walk all through the ship.
^ᵇᵘnote:Of a ship.