Eruvin

Raba1 explained: This2 applies only where by running towards the root3 he can reach it [before the Sabbath began].4 Said Abaye to him: Was it not in fact stated: ‘WAS OVERTAKEN BY DUSK’?5 — [The meaning is that] he was overtaken by dusk as far as his house was concerned;6 the root of the tree, however, he could7 well reach before dusk. Others say: Raba1 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 way8 when the former said to the latter, ‘Let our Sabbath base be under the palm-tree that is supporting another tree,’9 or, as others read: ‘under the palm-tree that releases its owner10 from the burden of taxes’.11 ‘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’.12 This,13 however, was not exactly correct. He attributed the teaching to14 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.15 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 place16 refers to the four cubits;17 let no man go out of his place16 refers to the two thousand cubits.18 Whence19 do we derive this? — R. Hisda replied: We deduce place20 from place,21 place21 from flight,22 flight22 from flight,23 flight23 from border,24 border24 from border,25 border25 from without26 and without26 from without, since it is written: And ye shall measure without the city for the east side two thousand cubits etc.27 But why should we not deduce it28 from the verse: From the wall of the city and outward29 a thousand cubits?30 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 return31 and The priest shall come,32 ‘returning’ and ‘coming’ mean the same thing?33 — Such a comparison34 is made only35 where no like expression36 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?37 If he upholds the word analogy38 [the objection could be raised:] Does not Scripture39 speak of ‘sides’?40 If, however, he does not uphold the word analogy38 [the difficulty would arise:] Whence does he [deduce that a Sabbath limit is] two thousand cubits? — He does in fact uphold the word analogy, but41 here42 the case is different43 since Scripture said: This shall be to them the open land about the cities44 which implies: In this case only45 sides must be allowed46 but not in that of those who observe the Sabbath rest.47 And the Rabbis?48 — They uphold49 the interpretation which R. Hanina advanced: Like this measurement50 shall be that of all who observe the Sabbath rest.51 R. Aha b. Jacob ruled: A man who carries an object52 along four cubits in a public domain incurs no guilt unless he carries It a distance equal to the diagonal of their square. 53 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 necessary54 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:55 Like this measurement56 shall be that of all who observe the Sabbath rest’.57 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: They58 differ only where [the expression used was] ‘In my place’,59 since R. Meir holds that the essence of an ‘erub is bread leisurely walk during the Sabbath proceed thither and along another two thousand cubits beyond it to his home. ‘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. 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? Sabbath limit. Rabbis as explained by R. Hanina. allow a rich man the same privilege as to a poor mall.