Eruvin

If 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 town1 provided only that he does not pass his Sabbath limit.2 Now, in what manner could he move the objects?3 Obviously4 by throwing.5 And6 R. Huna?7 — He can answer you: No; by pulling.8 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?9 — Read: He has a half of the courtyard [in which to move].10 Is not this also obvious?11 — It might have been presumed that12 there was cause to fear that one might carry objects about all the courtyard,13 hence we were informed [that no such possibility need be considered]. R. Nahman stated: Huna14 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 roof15 he is allowed to move objects16 in any part of the house. What is the reason? Because [the projection of] the roof of the house would strike him.17 R. Huna son of R. Nathan said: [The divergence of opinion here18 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-fold19 as a preventive measure against the possibility of walking in a valley,20 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 walking21 [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]?22 — Whence [could this23 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 that24 two different places are there involved,25 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 walking26 to four cubits] because they have enacted a preventive measure?27 — 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 day28 but not where he did not occupy the place while it was yet day.29 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. Both30 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.31 R. Zera replied: Because the ship32 continually takes him from the beginning of four cubits and puts him down at the end of the four cubits.33 What is the practical difference between them?34 — The practical difference between them is the case where the sides of the ship were broken down,35 or where one leaps from one ship into another.36 But why does not R. Zera give the same reason as Rabbah? — He can answer you: The sides37 Sabbath commenced is its entire area regarded as four cubits. point which lies within them may be used. opened out into a courtyard in which the carrying of objects was permitted. roof to be permitted and thus to be drawn after one's object as might be the case where no such distinguishing mark existed. THAN FOUR CUBITS. as the Amoras here (cf. supra p. 294, n. 8). 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. 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.). according to Rabbah, more than four cubits. According to R. Zera he may walk all through the ship.