דאי סלקא דעתך אכולהו הא בעי מיניה רבה מרב יהודה ולא פשט ליה
as, if it should enter your mind to say that Rav Yehuda said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis with regard to all the cases in the mishna, including that of the Ninth of Av that occurs on Shabbat eve, there is a difficulty: Didn’t Rabba raise a dilemma before Rav Yehuda with regard to this issue, and he did not answer him? This demonstrates that he did not have a decisive ruling on this subject.
ולטעמיך הא דדרש מר זוטרא משמיה דרב הונא הלכה מתענה ומשלים הא בעא מיניה רבה מרב הונא ולא פשט ליה
The Gemara responds: And according to your opinion, that the issue had not been resolved, there is a difficulty with that which Mar Zutra expounded in the name of Rav Huna: The halakha is that one fasts and completes the fast on Shabbat eve. Didn’t Rabba also raise this dilemma before Rav Huna, and he too did not answer him? How could Mar Zutra have reported this halakhic ruling in the name of Rav Huna?
אלא הא מקמי דשמעה והא לבתר דשמעה הכא נמי הא מקמי דשמעה הא לבתר דשמעה
Rather, you must say that this dilemma that Rabba raised to Rav Huna was before Rav Huna heard Rav’s ruling on the subject; whereas this, i.e., Rav Huna’s statement as cited by Mar Zutra, was made after he heard Rav’s ruling on the matter, and the problem was resolved for him. Here, too, with regard to Rav Yehuda, we can say that this dilemma that Rabba raised before Rav Yehuda was before Rav Yehuda heard Rav’s ruling on the topic, and therefore he did not know how to answer Rabba; whereas this, i.e., Rav Yehuda’s statement in the name of Rav, was made after he heard it.
דרש מר זוטרא משמיה דרב הונא הלכה מתענין ומשלימין:
The Gemara repeats the statement cited above in passing: Mar Zutra expounded in the name of Rav Huna: The halakha is that one fasts and completes the fast on the eves of Shabbat and Festivals.
הדרן עלך בכל מערבין
מתני׳ מי שהוציאוהו נכרים או רוח רעה אין לו אלא ארבע אמות
MISHNA: With regard to one whom gentiles forcibly took him out beyond the Shabbat limit, or if an evil spirit took him out, i.e., he was temporarily insane, and found himself outside the Shabbat limit, he has only four cubits that he may walk from where he is standing.
החזירוהו כאילו לא יצא
If the gentiles returned him, or if he came back while still under the influence of the evil spirit, it is as though he had never left his Shabbat limit, and he may move about within his original limit as before.
הוליכוהו לעיר אחרת נתנוהו בדיר או בסהר רבן גמליאל ורבי אלעזר בן עזריה אומרים מהלך את כולה רבי יהושע ורבי עקיבא אומרים אין לו אלא ארבע אמות:
If the gentiles brought him to a different city that was surrounded by walls, or if they put him into a pen or a stable, i.e., animal enclosures, the Sages disagree. Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya say: He may walk about the entire city, as the whole city is considered like four cubits. Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Akiva say: He has only four cubits from where he was placed.
מעשה שבאו מפלנדרסין והפליגה ספינתם בים רבן גמליאל ורבי אלעזר בן עזריה הלכו את כולה רבי יהושע ורבי עקיבא לא זזו מארבע אמות שרצו להחמיר על עצמן
The mishna relates: There was an incident where all of these Sages were coming from Pelandarsin, an overseas location, and their boat set sail on the sea on Shabbat, taking them beyond their Shabbat limit. Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya walked about the entire boat, as they hold that the entire boat is considered like four cubits, while Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Akiva did not move beyond four cubits, as they sought to be stringent with themselves.
פעם אחת לא נכנסו לנמל עד שחשיכה אמרו לו לרבן גמליאל מה אנו לירד
The mishna further relates that on one occasion, they did not enter the port [namel] until after nightfall on Shabbat eve. The others said to Rabban Gamliel: What is the halakha with regard to alighting from the boat at this time? In other words, were we already within the city’s limit before Shabbat commenced?
אמר להם מותרים אתם שכבר הייתי מסתכל והיינו בתוך התחום עד שלא חשיכה:
He said to them: You are permitted to alight, as I was watching, and I observed that we were already within the city’s limit before nightfall. We acquired our resting place in the city during the twilight period. Therefore, it is permitted to walk throughout the city even after nightfall.
גמ׳ תנו רבנן שלשה דברים מעבירין את האדם על דעתו ועל דעת קונו אלו הן נכרים ורוח רעה ודקדוקי עניות
GEMARA: Since the Gemara discussed one who stepped beyond the Shabbat limit due to an evil spirit, the Gemara cites a related baraita, in which the Sages taught: Three matters cause a person to act against his own will and the will of his Maker, and they are: Gentiles, and an evil spirit, and the depths of extreme poverty.
למאי נפקא מינה למיבעי רחמי עלייהו
The Gemara asks: What is the practical halakhic difference that emerges from this statement? The Gemara answers: It is significant as it teaches one to request mercy for people who suffer from those problems.
שלשה אין רואין פני גיהנם אלו הן דקדוקי עניות וחולי מעיין והרשות ויש אומרים אף מי שיש לו אשה רעה
The Gemara cites a related teaching: Three classes of people do not see the face of Gehenna, because the suffering that they bear in this world atones for their sins, and they are: Those suffering the depths of extreme poverty, those afflicted with intestinal disease, and those oppressed by creditors. And some say: Even one who has an evil wife who constantly harasses him.
ואידך אשה רעה מצוה לגרשה
The Gemara asks: And why don’t the other Sages include one with an evil wife among those who will not be punished in Gehenna? The Gemara answers: They maintain that it is a mitzva to divorce an evil wife. Therefore, that source of distress can be remedied.
ואידך זימנין דכתובתה מרובה אי נמי אית ליה בנים מינה ולא מצי מגרש לה
And why do the other Sages include an evil wife? The Gemara answers: Sometimes payment of her marriage contract is very large, and consequently he cannot divorce her since he cannot afford to pay it. Alternatively, he has children from her, and he cannot raise them himself, and therefore he cannot divorce her.
למאי נפקא מינה לקבולי מאהבה
The Gemara asks: What is the practical halakhic difference that emerges from this statement? The Gemara answers: It is significant as it teaches one to accept those afflictions with love, knowing that they will exempt him from the punishment of Gehenna.
שלשה מתין כשהן מספרין ואלו הן חולי מעיין וחיה והדרוקן
It was similarly taught: Three classes of people are liable to die while conversing with others, i.e., to die suddenly, although they appear to be in good health and are capable of engaging in conversation, and they are: Those afflicted with intestinal sickness, and a woman in childbirth, and one who is sick with edema [hidrokan].
למאי נפקא מינה למשמושי בהו זוודתא:
Once again the Gemara asks: What is the practical halakhic difference that emerges from this statement? The Gemara answers: It is significant as it teaches one to prepare shrouds for them, in case they need them suddenly.
אמר רב נחמן אמר שמואל יצא לדעת אין לו אלא ארבע אמות פשיטא השתא מי שהוציאוהו נכרים אין לו אלא ארבע אמות יצא לדעת מיבעיא
The Gemara proceeds to analyze the mishna: Rav Naḥman said that Shmuel said: If one knowingly went out beyond the Shabbat limit, he has only four cubits that he may walk. The Gemara asks: This is obvious. Now, if with regard to one whom gentiles forcibly took out beyond the Shabbat limit, he has only four cubits, with regard to one who knowingly went out, is it necessary to teach that he has no more than four cubits within which he may walk?
אלא אימא חזר לדעת אין לו אלא ארבע אמות
Rather, say that Rav Naḥman’s statement means: If he returned knowingly to within the Shabbat limit after having been taken out by gentiles, he has only four cubits within which he may walk, but no more.
הא נמי תנינא החזירוהו נכרים כאילו לא יצא החזירוהו הוא דכאילו לא יצא אבל הוציאוהו נכרים וחזר לדעת אין לו אלא ארבע אמות
The Gemara asks: This, too, we learned from a precise reading of the mishna: If the gentiles returned him to within the Shabbat limit it is as though he had never left the Shabbat limit, and he may move about as before. By inference, it is specifically when the gentiles themselves returned him that it is as though he never left his Shabbat limit. However, if gentiles took him out, and then he returned knowingly to his Shabbat limit, it is as though he left knowingly, and he has only four cubits within which he may walk.
אלא אימא יצא לדעת והחזירוהו נכרים אין לו אלא ארבע אמות
Rather, say Rav Naḥman’s statement as follows: If he knowingly went out beyond the Shabbat limit, and was later forcibly returned by gentiles to within his limit, he has only four cubits that he may walk, although he was restored to within his limit against his will.
הא נמי תנינא הוציאוהו והחזירוהו כאילו לא יצא הוציאוהו והחזירוהו הוא דכאילו לא יצא אבל יצא לדעת לא
The Gemara raises a difficulty: This, too, we learned from a precise reading of the mishna: If gentiles forcibly took him out and later returned him, it is as though he never left. By inference, it is specifically when the gentiles themselves forcibly took him out and then themselves returned him that it is as though he never left the Shabbat limit. However, if he knowingly went out, no, that is not the halakha, even if he was later forcibly returned by gentiles.
מהו דתימא לצדדין קתני מי שהוציאוהו נכרים וחזר לדעת אין לו אלא ארבע אמות אבל יצא לדעת והחזירוהו נכרים כאילו לא יצא קא משמע לן
The Gemara answers: Rav Naḥman’s statement is necessary lest you say that perhaps the mishna is not referring to one specific case, but rather it is teaching disjunctively, i.e., referring to two separate cases, as follows: One who was forcibly taken out beyond the Shabbat limit by gentiles and later returned knowingly has only four cubits within which to walk. But if he knowingly went out beyond the Shabbat limit and was later forcibly returned by gentiles, it is as though he had never left, and he may move within his original limit as before. Therefore, Rav Naḥman teaches us that if he willingly went out beyond the Shabbat limit and was later forcibly returned by gentiles, it is considered as though he had returned knowingly, so that he has only four cubits within which to walk.
בעו מיניה מרבה הוצרך לנקביו מהו אמר להם גדול כבוד הבריות שדוחה את לא תעשה שבתורה
They raised a dilemma before Rabba: If a person who is restricted to an area of four cubits needed to relieve himself and no secluded spot is available, what is the halakha? He said to them: The Sages established a principle that great is human dignity, which even supersedes a negative precept of the Torah, and therefore a person is permitted to overstep the Shabbat limit fixed by the Sages in order to relieve himself modestly.
אמרי נהרדעי אי פיקח הוא עייל לתחומא וכיון דעל על
The Sages of Neharde’a said: If this person is clever, he will enter into his original Shabbat limit, and since he was permitted to enter it, he entered, and may remain there.
אמר רב פפא פירות שיצאו חוץ לתחום וחזרו אפילו במזיד לא הפסידו את מקומן מאי טעמא אנוסין נינהו
Rav Pappa said: With regard to produce that was taken out beyond the Shabbat limit and was later returned, even if this was done intentionally, the produce has not lost its place; rather, it may still be carried within the entire limit. What is the reason for this halakha? It is that the produce did not go out willingly, but was taken due to circumstances beyond its control.
איתיביה רב יוסף בר שמעיה לרב פפא רבי נחמיה ורבי אליעזר בן יעקב אומרים לעולם אסורין עד שיחזרו למקומן שוגגין בשוגג אין במזיד לא
Rav Yosef bar Shemaya raised an objection to the opinion of Rav Pappa from a baraita: Rabbi Neḥemya and Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov say: It is actually prohibited to carry the produce beyond four cubits, unless it was returned to its place unwittingly. By inference, If it was returned unwittingly, yes, it is permitted, but if it was returned intentionally, it is not.
תנאי היא דתניא פירות שיצאו חוץ לתחום בשוגג יאכלו במזיד לא יאכלו
The Gemara answers: This is subject to a dispute between the tanna’im, as it was taught in a baraita: With regard to produce that was taken out beyond the Shabbat limit, if it was taken out unwittingly, it may be eaten; but if it was taken out intentionally, it may not be eaten.