עירובין 51 — Soncino English Talmud

¹Raba explained: This applies only where by running towards the root he can reach it [before the Sabbath began]. Said Abaye to him: Was it not in fact stated: ‘WAS OVERTAKEN BY DUSK’? — [The meaning is that] he was overtaken by dusk as far as his house was concerned; the root of the tree, however, he could well reach before dusk. Others say: Raba replied: [The meaning is that] he would be overtaken by dusk if he walked slowly but by running he could well reach the root. Rabbah and R. Joseph were once under way when the former said to the latter, ‘Let our Sabbath base be under the palm-tree that is supporting another tree,’ or, as others read: ‘under the palm-tree that releases its owner from the burden of taxes’. ‘I do not know it’, the other replied. ‘Rely then on me’, the first said: ‘for it was taught: R. Jose ruled: If two were [travelling together] one of whom knew [of a well defined place] and the other did not know of it, the latter transfers his right to a choice of place to the former who then declares, ‘Let our Sabbath base be in such and such a place’. This, however, was not exactly correct. He attributed the teaching to R. Jose with the sole object that the latter should accept it from him since R. Jose was known to have sound reasons for his rulings. IF HE DOES NOT KNOW OF ANY TREE OR WALL, OR IF HE IS NOT FAMILIAR etc. Where in Scripture are these TWO THOUSAND CUBITS prescribed? — It was taught: Abide ye every man in its place refers to the four cubits; let no man go out of his place refers to the two thousand cubits. Whence do we derive this? — R. Hisda replied: We deduce place from place, place from flight, flight from flight, flight from border, border from border, border from without and without from without, since it is written: And ye shall measure without the city for the east side two thousand cubits etc. But why should we not deduce it from the verse: From the wall of the city and outward a thousand cubits? The expression, ‘without’ is deduced from ‘without’ but not from ‘outward’. What material difference, however, is there between the two expressions? Did not the School of R. Ishmael in fact teach: [With reference to the expressions,] The priest shall return and The priest shall come, ‘returning’ and ‘coming’ mean the same thing? — Such a comparison is made only where no like expression is available, but where one exactly like it is available deduction is made only from the one which is exactly like it. A RADIUS OF TWO THOUSAND CUBITS. As to R. HANINA B. ANTIGONUS what possible justification is there for his view? If he upholds the word analogy [the objection could be raised:] Does not Scripture speak of ‘sides’? If, however, he does not uphold the word analogy [the difficulty would arise:] Whence does he [deduce that a Sabbath limit is] two thousand cubits? — He does in fact uphold the word analogy, but here the case is different since Scripture said: This shall be to them the open land about the cities which implies: In this case only sides must be allowed but not in that of those who observe the Sabbath rest. And the Rabbis? — They uphold the interpretation which R. Hanina advanced: Like this measurement shall be that of all who observe the Sabbath rest. R. Aha b. Jacob ruled: A man who carries an object along four cubits in a public domain incurs no guilt unless he carries It a distance equal to the diagonal of their square. R. Papa related: Raba tested us [with the following question] ‘With regard to a pillar in a public domain ten handbreadths high and four handbreadths wide, is it necessary that its width shall be equal to the diagonal of four cubits square, or is this unnecessary’? And we replied: ‘Is not this case identical with that of R. Hanina who learned: Like this measurement shall be that of all who observe the Sabbath rest’. THIS IT IS OF WHICH THE RABBIS HAVE SAID: A POOR MAN MAY MAKE HIS ‘ERUB WITH HIS FEET. R. MEIR SAID: WE CAN APPLY THIS LAW TO A POOR MAN ONLY etc. R. Nahman said: They differ only where [the expression used was] ‘In my place’, since R. Meir holds that the essence of an ‘erub is bread^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^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ^ᵃᵛ^ᵃʷ^ᵃˣ^ᵃʸ^ᵃᶻ^ᵇᵃ^ᵇᵇ^ᵇᶜ^ᵇᵈ^ᵇᵉ^ᵇᶠ^ᵇᵍ

^ᵃnote:MS.M., Rabbah,
^ᵇnote:The ruling that if the man had specified a particular spot of four cubits he acquires it as his Sabbath base and may in a leisurely walk during the Sabbath proceed thither and along another two thousand cubits beyond it to his home.
^ᶜnote:Sc. the spot he appointed as his Sabbath base.
^ᵈnote:If, however, he cannot reach it even by running, he cannot acquire it.
^ᵉnote:Presumably at the time he appointed the place from a distance. How then could he possibly reach it before dusk?
^ᶠnote:I.e., he could not reach his house before dusk, even by running.
^ᵍnote:Were he to run.
^ʰnote:On the Sabbath eve near dusk.
^ⁱnote:Lit., ‘her brother’.
^ʲnote:By the abundance of its fruit and the proceeds derived from their sale.
^ᵏnote:Cur. edd. insert in parentheses, ‘Does the Master know it?’
^ˡnote:Tosef. ‘Er. III. Cf. supra 50b and notes.
^ᵐnote:Rabbah's statement that the ruling he cited was R. Jose's.
^ⁿnote:Lit., ‘he taught to him as’.
^ᵒnote:Lit., ‘his depth is with him’. In the Tosef., however, as we have it, the ruling is explicitly attributed to R. Jose.
^ᵖnote:Ex. XVI, 29.
^ᵠnote:Which every man is allowed as his resting place for the Sabbath.
^ʳnote:Allowed in all directions from a man's resting place.
^ˢnote:Sillce the text explicitly mentions neither four, nor two thousand cubits.
^ᵗnote:That was mentioned in connection with the Sabbath (Ex. XVI, 29).
^ᵘnote:Mentioned in Ex. XXI, 13: I will appoint thee a place whither he may flee.
^ᵛnote:‘He may flee’ occurring in the same verse (cf. prev. n.).
^ʷnote:‘Fleeth’ in the verse: Beyond the border of his city of refuge, whither he fleeth (Num. XXXV, 26).
^ˣnote:In the same verse just cited.
^ʸnote:Without the border (ibid. 27).
^ᶻnote:The first word in the last citation (v. prev. n.).
^ᵃᵃnote:Num. XXXV, 5. As the last cited verse which explicitly mentions ‘two thousand cubits’ contains the expression ‘without’, it is compared with the expression of ‘without’ in Num. XXXV, 27 and since that ‘without’ occurs in the same verse as ‘border’ the two also are compared. ‘Border’ again is compared with ‘border’ in Num. XXXV, 26 which in turn is compared with ‘flight’ (fleeth) that occurs in the same verse. This last expression is compared with ‘fight’ (flee) in Ex. XXI, 13 which is compared with ‘place’ that occurs in the same verse. ‘Place’ having been compared with ‘place’ in the precept of the Sabbath the limit of ‘two thousand cubits’ mentioned at the other end of the chain of comparisons is applied to the first end also.
^ᵃᵇnote:The permitted distance.
^ᵃᶜnote:vmuj similar in meaning and form to .uj (‘without’).
^ᵃᵈnote:And the permitted distance should accordingly be no more than one thousand cubits.
^ᵃᵉnote:Lev. XIV, 39.
^ᵃᶠnote:Ibid. 44.
^ᵃᵍnote:For purposes of inference, v. Hor., Sonc. ed., p. 57, n. 11. Now if a comparison may be drawn between expressions that resemble each other in their general significance alone, why should not a comparison also be drawn between expressions that differ from each other so slightly as those of .uj and vmuj?
^ᵃʰnote:Between a word the meaning of which is to be deduced and one from which deduction is made.
^ᵃⁱnote:Lit., ‘these words’.
^ᵃʲnote:Exactly like the one that is to be deduced.
^ᵃᵏnote:Lit., ‘whatever is your desire’.
^ᵃˡnote:Between the expressions in the various texts cited supra in support of the prescribed two thousand cubits for the Sabbath limit.
^ᵃᵐnote:In Num. XXXV, 5.
^ᵃⁿnote:Lit., ‘sides are written’. A ‘side’ could not apply to a circle.
^ᵃᵒnote:In reply to the objection from the expression of ‘sides’ (cf. prev. n.).
^ᵃᵖnote:In measuring a Sabbath limit.
^ᵃᵠnote:From other cases where ‘side’ is used.
^ᵃʳnote:Num. XXXV, 5.
^ᵃˢnote:That of the open land for the Levites.
^ᵃᵗnote:Sc. they must be given the benefit of the corners also.
^ᵃᵘnote:The latter are allowed only a radius of the prescribed distances.
^ᵃᵛnote:How, In view of this explanation, can they maintain that THE DISTANCES ARE TO BE SQUARED?
^ᵃʷnote:Cf. the reading of MS.M. Cur. edd. ‘one learned R. Hanania said’.
^ᵃˣnote:The one for the land of the Levites (Num. XXXV, 5).
^ᵃʸnote:As the former had the benefit of the corners so must the latter.
^ᵃᶻnote:On the Sabbath.
^ᵇᵃnote:Lit., ‘they and their diagonal’, i.e., the man is given the benefit of the corners, in agreement with the view of the Rabbis as explained by R. Hanina.
^ᵇᵇnote:In order that it may be regarded as a private domain, v. supra 33b.
^ᵇᶜnote:So MS.M. Cur. edd. ‘Hanania, because it was taught: R. Hanania said’.
^ᵇᵈnote:The one for the land of the Levites (Num. XXXV, 5).
^ᵇᵉnote:on the various interpretations of this ruling cf. Tosaf. s.v. vzf a.l.
^ᵇᶠnote:R. Meir and R. Judah.
^ᵇᵍnote:Sc. if the man appointed as his Sabbath base the place where he stood at the time. Only in such a case does R. Judah allow a rich man the same privilege as to a poor mall.

²[and that, therefore, it is only for] a poor man that the Rabbis have relaxed the law, but not for a rich man; while R. Judah holds that the essence of an ‘erub is [the position of] one's feet, Irrespective of whether one is poor or rich; but where the expression used was ‘In such and such a place’ all agree that Only a poor man is allowed such an ‘erub but not a rich man. And who was it that learned, ‘THIS IT IS OF WHICH [THE RABBIS] HAVE SAID [etc.]?’ — R. Meir. And what does he refer to? — To the case of one WHO DOES NOT KNOW OF ANY TREE OR WALL OR ONE WHO IS NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE HALACHAH. And who was it that learned, ‘THE RABBIS’ ENACTMENT THAT AN ‘ERUB IS TO BE PREPARED WITH BREAD HAVING THE ONLY PURPOSE OF MAKING IT EASIER’? — R. Judah. R. Hisda, however, said: They differ only where the expression used was, ‘In such and such a place’, R. Meir being of the opinion that the law was relaxed for the poor only but not for the rich, while R. Judah holds that it was relaxed for both poor and rich; but where the expression used was ‘In my place’ all agree that the law was relaxed for both poor and rich, since the essence of ‘erub is [the position of] one's feet [at the spot appointed]. And who was it that learned, ‘THIS IT IS OF WHICH [THE RABBIS] HAVE SAID’? — R. Meir. And what does he refer to? — To the following: IF A MAN WHO WAS ON A JOURNEY HOMEWARD WAS OVERTAKEN BY DUSK. And who was it that learned, ‘THE RABBIS’ ENACTMENT THAT AN ‘ERUB IS TO BE PREPARED WITH BREAD HAVING THE ONLY PURPOSE OF MAKING IT EASIER’? — Both. It was taught in agreement with R. Nahman: Both poor and rich must prepare their ‘erub with bread. A rich man, furthermore, must not proceed beyond the Sabbath limit and make the declaration, ‘Let my Sabbath base be where I stand now because it is only for the benefit of one who was under way when it became dusk that the Rabbis have enacted that an ‘erub may be prepared with one's feet; so R. Meir. R. Judah ruled: Both poor and rich must prepare their ‘erub with their feet. A rich man should, therefore, proceed beyond the Sabbath limit and make the declaration, ‘Let my Sabbath base be where I stand now and this is the essence of an ‘erub; the Sages, however, allowed a householder to send his ‘erub by the hand of his servant or by the hand of his son or by the hand of any other agent in order to make it easier for him. R. Judah related: It once happened that the Memel and Gorion families at Aroma distributed dried figs and dried grapes to the poor in a time of dearth, and the poor men of Kefar Shihin and Kefar Hinaniah used to come and wait at their Sabbath limit until dusk and on the following day got up early and proceeded to their destination. R. Ashi said: An inference from the wording of a Mishnah also supports this view, for it was stated: If a man left [his home] to proceed to a town with which [his home town desired to be] connected by an ‘erub , but a friend of his induced him to return home, he himself is allowed to proceed to the other town but all the other townspeople are forbidden; so R. Judah. And in discussing the point, ‘In what respect does he differ from them?’ R. Huna replied: We are here dealing with the case of a man who had, for instance, two houses between which two Sabbath limits intervened. As far as he is concerned, since he had set out on his journey, he has the status of a poor man. They, however, have the status of rich men. Thus it is perfectly dear that only a poor man but not a rich man is allowed to prepare an ‘erub by the declaration, ‘Let my Sabbath base be at such and such a place’. This is conclusive. R. Hiyya b. Ashi taught Hiyya b. Rab in the presence of Rab [that the law applied] to both poor and rich. Said Rab to him: Conclude this also with the Statement, ‘The halachah is in agreement with R. Judah’.Rabbah b. R. Hanan was in the habit of going from Artibana to Pumbeditha52^ᵇʰ^ᵇⁱ^ᵇʲ^ᵇᵏ^ᵇˡ^ᵇᵐ^ᵇⁿ^ᵇᵒ^ᵇᵖ^ᵇᵠ^ᵇʳ^ᵇˢ^ᵇᵗ^ᵇᵘ^ᵇᵛ^ᵇʷ^ᵇˣ^ᵇʸ^ᵇᶻ^ᶜᵃ^ᶜᵇ^ᶜᶜ^ᶜᵈ^ᶜᵉ^ᶜᶠ^ᶜᵍ^ᶜʰ^ᶜⁱ^ᶜʲ^ᶜᵏ^ᶜˡ^ᶜᵐ^ᶜⁿ^ᶜᵒ^ᶜᵖ^ᶜᵠ^ᶜʳ^ᶜˢ^ᶜᵗ^ᶜᵘ^ᶜᵛ^ᶜʷ^ᶜˣ^ᶜʸ^ᶜᶻ^ᵈᵃ^ᵈᵇ^ᵈᶜ^ᵈᵈ^ᵈᵉ^ᵈᶠ^ᵈᵍ

^ᵇʰnote:I.e., one who was on a journey and had no bread with him.
^ᵇⁱnote:In permitting him to acquire the place on which he stood as his Sabbath base though he deposited no bread there.
^ᵇʲnote:I.e., the man appointed as his Sabbath base some specified spot in the distance.
^ᵇᵏnote:Even R. Judah.
^ᵇˡnote:Since the man himself’ does not occupy at the time the place he appointed.
^ᵇᵐnote:V. p. 355, n. 13.
^ᵇⁿnote:Who is able and, therefore, must use the prescribed quantity of bread.
^ᵇᵒnote:When implies that the original enactment was more rigid but that the Rabbis have relaxed it in favour of the poor.
^ᵇᵖnote:Who holds that the essence of an ‘erub is the bread.
^ᵇᵠnote:Who appointed, therefore, the spot on which he stood as his Sabbath base.
^ᵇʳnote:Implying that the original enactment was that the man must personally occupy the spot which he appoints as his base for the Sabbath.
^ᵇˢnote:R. Meir and R. Judah.
^ᵇᵗnote:In which case neither the man himself nor his bread was at the place appointed.
^ᵇᵘnote:Lit., ‘yes’.
^ᵇᵛnote:Even R. Meir.
^ᵇʷnote:And the man himself, in this case, was present at the place.
^ᵇˣnote:V. supra n. 6.
^ᵇʸnote:Who allows the privilege to the poor only. It cannot be the statement of R. Judah since he draws no distinction between rich and poor.
^ᵇᶻnote:AND HE KNEW OF A TREE . . . AND SAID, LET MY SABBATH BASE BE AT ITS ROOT’ concerning which it was ruled that the man acquires that place though he was not at the time standing on it. According to R. Meir this applies to a poor man only, while according to R. Judah it applies to a rich man also, though an ‘erub ab initio requires the person's presence at the place he appoints.
^ᶜᵃnote:V. supra p. 356, n. 9..
^ᶜᵇnote:Lit., ‘all’, R. Meir as well as R. Judah, the former also agreeing that the essence of ‘erub is that the person concerned shall be on the spot which he appoints as is Sabbath base.
^ᶜᶜnote:That the dispute between R. Meir and R. Judah bears on that case only where the man who made the ‘erub was on the spot that he appointed as his Sabbath base; that, according to R. Meir, only to a poor man (i.e., one who has no bread) is such all ‘erub permitted, while according to R. Judah this is permitted even where bread is obtainable, and that if the person was not present at the appointed spot even R. Judah restricts the privilege to the poor or the man who has no bread.
^ᶜᵈnote:Sc. within four cubits from that limit. Beyond that distance no ‘erub can be effective at all.
^ᶜᵉnote:In consequence of which he is unable to obtain bread.
^ᶜᶠnote:Which shows, in agreement with R. Nahman, that, according to R. Meir, even where a person is on the very spot which he appointed as his Sabbath base, an ‘erub without bread is permitted to him only if he is poor.
^ᶜᵍnote:If this is not inconvenient to him.
^ᶜʰnote:This shows, again in agreement with R. Nahman, that, according to R. Judah, a rich man is not ab initio permitted to prepare an ‘erub without bread unless he is present at the spot he appointed.
^ᶜⁱnote:[Or, Ruma, identified with Chirbet Rume south of the El-Batuff valley. West of Ruma, at about four thousand cubits distance lies Asochis (Kefar Shihin). Kefar Hananiah (Kefar ‘Anan) is situated much further north, on the boundary between Lower and Upper Galilee and hardly fits into the context, and is in fact omitted in the parallel passage in J.T., v. Klein, Beitrage pp. 67ff].
^ᶜʲnote:Villages that were just within four thousand cubits from Aroma and that could, therefore, be joined to it by an ‘erub prepared on the boundary between the two Sabbath limits that intervened between them.
^ᶜᵏnote:On the Sabbath eve.
^ᶜˡnote:Sc. at the boundary line where their Sabbath limit met the Sabbath limit of Aroma.
^ᶜᵐnote:Thus acquiring a Sabbath base within both limits.
^ᶜⁿnote:Which was the Sabbath.
^ᶜᵒnote:Now the poor men in question, having come from their own homes, were presumably in possession of some bread that sufficed for the two meals prescribed for an ‘erub . They were, in consequence, subject, as far as the preparation Of an ‘erub is concerned, to the same restrictions as those imposed upon a ‘rich man’. Yet it was not by a deposit of bread but by their personal attendance at the place they desired to appoint as their Sabbath base that their ‘erub was effected. Thus it follows that the ruling in practice is in agreement with R. Nahman's interpretation of R. Judah's view, viz. that a person's presence at the very spot he wishes to acquire as his Sabbath base is the essence of an ‘erub .
^ᶜᵖnote:R. Nahman's, viz. that R. Judah does not allow a rich man to acquire a Sabbath base without an ‘erub of bread if he is not personally in attendance at that base, and that his disagreement with R. Meir is restricted to such a case only where the person concerned was in attendance at the place he desired to acquire.
^ᶜᵠnote:On a Sabbath eve.
^ᶜʳnote:That was just two Sabbath limits distant from his own home.
^ᶜˢnote:And he was instructed to deposit one at the boundary line at which the two limits (v. prev. n.) met. Had he carried out his mission, the place where the ‘erub would have been deposited would have served as a Sabbath base for all the townspeople who would have been allowed thereby to walk distances of two thousand cubits from that base in all directions and consequently to move freely between their own town and the other.
^ᶜᵗnote:Before he deposited the ‘erub.
^ᶜᵘnote:On the Sabbath.
^ᶜᵛnote:The reason follows.
^ᶜʷnote:Infra 52a.
^ᶜˣnote:That he should be allowed to proceed to the other town while they are not.
^ᶜʸnote:One in each of the two towns.
^ᶜᶻnote:And his intention when setting out was not to acquire a Sabbath base between the two limits but to proceed to his own house in the other town.
^ᵈᵃnote:Along which food was not obtainable.
^ᵈᵇnote:Who has no bread and who is privileged to acquire a Sabbath base, though he was not present at that place and though he made no explicit declaration of his desire to acquire that base.
^ᵈᶜnote:The townspeople who remained at home and who were presumably in the possession of the prescribed quantity of food for an ‘erub .
^ᵈᵈnote:Who are able to provide the required quantity of bread and who cannot, therefore, acquire a Sabbath base except by proceeding to the spot in person or by sending thither the prescribed quantity of food.
^ᵈᵉnote:That an ‘erub may be effected by proceeding in person to the spot one desired to acquire as a Sabbath base.
^ᵈᶠnote:On the Sabbath.
^ᵈᵍnote:Towns that were just two Sabbath limits distant from one another and that could in consequence be combined by an ‘erub on the boundary line between the two limits.