Eruvin

by declaring,1 ‘Let my Sabbath base be at Zinatha’.2 Said Abaye to him, ‘What do you think?3 That in a dispute between R. Meir and R. Judah the halachah is in agreement with R. Judah,4 and that R. Hisda submitted that they5 differed only where the expression used was, ‘In such and such a place’?6 Surely [it may be objected: Does not] R. Nahman [differ from R. Hisda], and it was taught in agreement with him?7 — ‘I withdraw’, the other replied. Rami b. Hama enquired: Behold, it has been laid down that if a man acquired a Sabbath base in person8 he is entitled to move within four cubits,9 is one who deposits his ‘erub10 also entitled to move within four cubits or not? — Raba replied: Come and hear: THE RABBIS’ ENACTMENT THAT AN ‘erub IS TO BE PREPARED WITH BREAD HAVING THE ONLY PURPOSE OF MAKING IT EASIER FOR THE RICH MAN SO THAT HE SHAll NOT BE COMPELLED TO GO OUT HIMSELF AND MAKE THE ERUB WITH HIS FEET. Now if you were to contend that he11 is not entitled to the four cubits, [how can it state its purpose to be] ‘OF MAKING IT EASIER’? Surely [it results in the imposition] of a restriction!12 — One is nevertheless pleased with the enactment since thereby one avoids the trouble of going out.13 MISHNAH.14 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. R. MEIR RULED: WHOSOEVER IS ABLE TO PREPARE AN ‘erub15 AND NEGLECTED TO DO IT16 IS IN THE POSITION OF AN ASS-DRIVER AND A CAMEL-DRIVER.17 GEMARA. In18 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. So19 it was also taught: If a man had two houses,20 and two Sabbath limits intervened between them, he acquires his ‘erub21 as soon as he had set out on his journey;22 so R. Judah. Relaxing the law still more,23 R. Jose son of R. Judah ruled: Even if24 a friend of his met him and said: ‘Spend the night here, as the weather is rather25 hot’ or ‘rather cold’, he may set out on his journey on the following day as early as he likes. Rabbah submitted: All agree26 that it is necessary27 to make28 [the prescribed declaration],29 the Only point at issue between them [being whether it is essential for the man] to have actually set out on his journey.30 R. Joseph, however, submitted: That it is essential for the man to have set out on his journey is disputed by none,31 the Only point at issue between them being whether it is necessary for him to make [the prescribed declaration]. 32 Whose view is followed in the ruling of Ulla that33 if a man set out on a journey and a friend of his induced him to return, behold he is regarded as having returned and as having set out? (But if he is regarded as ‘having returned’34 why is he described as ‘having set out’?35 And if he is regarded as ‘having set out’35 why is he described as ‘having returned’?34 — It is this that was meant: Although he has actually returned he is regarded as one who had set out). Now in agreement with whose view has this statement36 been made? — In agreement with that of R. Joseph according to R. Jose son of R. Judah.37 R. Judah b. Ishtatha once38 brought a basket of fruit to R. Nathan b. Oshaia. When the former was departing39 the latter allowed him to descend the stairs40 and then called after him, ‘Spend the night here’. On the following day he got up early and departed.41 man. the spot, which he desired to acquire as his Sabbath base. Now, since Rabbah b. R. Hanan made his declaration at his own house he should not be entitled to acquire Zinatha as his Sabbath base even according to R. Judah. result of it he forfeits that right. enactment had the PURPOSE or MAKING IT EASIER FOR THE RICH MAN. boundary line between the two Sabbath limits that separate the one town from the other or (b) in his own house where he remained when the Sabbath began, he must be restricted in his movements to the two thousand cubits between the house in which he stayed and the termination of the Sabbath limit of that town. He must not proceed beyond the Sabbath limit of the town in the direction of the other town since it is possible that he acquired his Sabbath base at (b), and he must not move outside the town in the opposite direction, since it is possible that his Sabbath base had been acquired at (a). though he returned home before he reached that spot. rejected by Rashi are here disregarded. the Mishnah supra 49b: ‘let my Sabbath base be at its root’. obtain the required quantity of bread, he cannot be regarded as a poor man; while R. Jose holds that once a man has decided to set out on a journey, though his plan has been changed and he remains at home, he is regarded as a poor man. holds that the setting out on a journey is alone sufficient as an indication of the man's intention and no explicit declaration is therefore necessary. R. Meir's ruling restricting the man's movements as if he were ‘AN ASS-DRIVER AND A CAMEL-DRIVER’, despite his explicit declaration, may be explained as based on the principle that a man cannot be regarded as poor unless he is actually under way. A man, like the one in question who has only started on his journey is, in R. Meir's opinion, still regarded as a rich man who must use bread for his ‘erub ; and since this man did not "SC bread he cannot by his declaration alone acquire a base between the Sabbath limits, while his base at home he loses through his explicit declaration that he wished to acquire one elsewhere. made no explicit declaration that he wished to acquire it. 7.),