Eruvin

no person is so meritorious as to be able to learn from any teacher. And R. Jose related: It once happened that Joseph the Priest went to his Master at Zidon1 to study Torah’; and in connection with this R. Johanan said: ‘The halachah is in agreement with R. Jose’;2 but what need was there [for this specific statement] seeing that it has already been laid down that ‘in a dispute between R. Judah and R. Jose the halachah is in agreement with R. Jose’?3 — Abaye replied: This4 was necessary. Since it might — have been presumed that [the general rules]5 applied only to a Mishnah but not to a Baraitha hence we were informed [here6 of R. Johanan's statement].7 [R. Mesharsheya],8 however, meant this: Those rules were not unanimously approved, since Rab9 in fact did not accept them. Rab Judah laid down in the name of Samuel: Objects belonging to a gentile do not acquire their place for the Sabbath.10 In accordance with whose view has this ruling been laid down? If it be suggested: According to that of the Rabbis [the objection would arise:] Is not this obvious? Since objects of hefker,11 though they have no owner,12 do not acquire their place for the Sabbath was it necessary to state that the same law applies to a gentile's objects, which have an owner?13 — The fact is that the ruling14 has been laid down in accordance with the view of R. Johanan b. Nuri, and it is this that we were informed: That R. Johanan b. Nuri's ruling that15 objects acquire their place for the Sabbath applied only to objects of hefker, since they have no owner, but not to a gentile's objects which have an owner. An objection was raised: R. Simeon b. Eleazar ruled: If an Israelite borrowed an object from a gentile16 on a festival day, and so also if an Israelite lent an object to a gentile on the eve of a festival17 and the latter returned it to him on the festival, and so also any utensils and stores18 that were kept19 within the Sabbath limit of the town, may be carried within a radius of two thousand cubits in every direction.20 If a gentile has brought fruit to an Israelite front a place beyond his Sabbath limit, the latter21 may not move them from their position.22 Now if you grant that R. Johanan b. Nuri holds that a gentile's objects do acquire their place for the Sabbath, it might well be explained that this ruling23 is in agreement with the view of R. Johanan b. Nuri. If, however, you contend that R. Johanan b. Nuri holds that a gentile's objects do not acquire their place for the Sabbath [the objection would arise:] Whose view does it represent seeing that it is neither that of R. Johanan b. Nuri nor that of the Rabbis?24 — R. Johanan b. Nuri may in fact maintain that a gentile's objects do acquire their place for the Sabbath, but Samuel laid down his ruling in agreement with the Rabbis. And as to your objection,25 ‘According to that of the Rabbis . . . is not this obvious?’ [it may be replied:] Since one might have presumed that a restriction was imposed in the case of a gentile owner as a preventive measure against an infringement of the law in the case of an Israelite owner, hence we were informed [that no such restriction was deemed necessary]. R. Hiyya b. Abin, however, laid down in the name of R. Johanan: The objects of a gentile acquire their place for the Sabbath, a restriction having been imposed upon those of a gentile owner as a preventive measure against the infringement of the law in the case of those of an Israelite owner. Some rams once arrived at Mabrakta26 and Raba permitted the inhabitants of Mahuza27 to purchase them.28 Said Rabina to Raba: What [authority is it that you have in] your mind?29 That of Rab Judah who laid down in the name of Samuel that a gentile's objects do not acquire their place for the Sabbath?30 Surely, in a dispute between Samuel and R. Johanan the halachah is in agreement with R. Johanan, and R. Hiyya b. Abin has laid down in the name of R. Johanan: The objects of a gentile acquire their place for the Sabbath, a restriction having been imposed upon those of a gentile owner as a preventive measure against the infringement of the law in the case of those of an Israelite owner? Raba thereupon ruled: Let them31 be sold to the people of Mabrakta since in their case all Mabrakta is deemed to be only four cubits in extent.32 R. Hiyya taught: A fish-pond between two Sabbath limits33 requires cleanness of Palestine. 46b) were to be disregarded. does not acquire his place for the Sabbath, could not obviously acquire any such place for themselves. the Sabbath limit of the town. prepared an ‘erub which enables him to walk beyond two thousand cubits from the town, he may not carry with him that object beyond a distance of two thousand cubits from the town. town they are now outside their permitted limit. the Sabbath. How then could it be said supra that Samuel's ruling to the contrary was in agreement with that of R. Johanan b. Nuri? them from a place beyond the Sabbath limit of that town. [This occurred on a festival, when it is permissible to obtain on credit purchases of food, v. R. Hananel]. as Rab testified (supra 42b), is the accepted halachah and applies also to a town that has walls around it.