Eruvin 42aעירובין מ״ב א
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save "Eruvin 42a"
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
42aמ״ב א

רבי נחמיה אומר במקומן יאכלו שלא במקומן לא יאכלו

Rabbi Neḥemya says: If the produce was returned and is now in its original place, it may be eaten; but if it is not in its original place, i.e., if it is still beyond the Shabbat limit, it may not be eaten.

מאי במקומן אילימא במקומן במזיד והא קתני בהדיא רבי נחמיה ורבי אליעזר בן יעקב אומרים לעולם אסורין עד שיחזרו למקומן שוגגין בשוגג אין במזיד לא

The Gemara clarifies: What is meant by: In its place? If you say that the produce was returned to its place intentionally, there is a difficulty, as it was explicitly taught in 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, only if it was returned unwittingly is it indeed permitted, but if it was returned intentionally, it is not permitted.

אלא לאו במקומן בשוגג וחסורי מחסרא והכי קתני פירות שיצאו חוץ לתחום בשוגג יאכלו במזיד לא יאכלו

Rather, does it not mean that the produce was returned to its place unwittingly, and the baraita is incomplete and it teaches the following: 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.

במה דברים אמורים שלא במקומן אבל במקומן אפילו במזיד יאכלו ואתא רבי נחמיה למימר אפילו במקומן נמי בשוגג אין במזיד לא

In what case is this statement said? In a case where the produce is not in its original place, i.e., it is still beyond the Shabbat limit. But if it was returned and is now in its original place, even if it was returned intentionally, it may be eaten. And Rabbi Neḥemya came to say: Even if the produce was returned and is now in its original place, a distinction applies. If it was returned unwittingly, yes, it is permitted; but if it was returned intentionally, it is not.

לא במזיד במקומן דכולי עלמא לא פליגי דאסור והכא בשוגג שלא במקומן פליגי תנא קמא סבר בשוגג שרי שלא במקומן ורבי נחמיה סבר אפילו שוגג במקומן אין שלא במקומן לא

The Gemara rejects this explanation: No, this is not necessarily the case, as the baraita can also be explained as follows: If the produce was returned intentionally to its place, everyone agrees, i.e., both the first tanna and Rabbi Neḥemya, that it is forbidden. However, here they disagree with regard to produce that was unwittingly taken out beyond the Shabbat limit and was not returned, so that it is not in its original place. The first tanna holds that if the produce was taken out unwittingly, it is permitted to be eaten, even if it is not in its original place. However, Rabbi Neḥemya holds that even if the produce was taken out unwittingly, if it was returned to its original place, it is permitted; but if it was not returned to its original place, it is not permitted.

והא מדקתני סיפא רבי נחמיה ורבי אליעזר בן יעקב אומרים לעולם אסורין עד שיחזרו למקומן שוגגין שוגג אין במזיד לא מכלל דתנא קמא סבר במזיד נמי שרי שמע מינה:

The Gemara objects to this reading: However, since the latter clause of this baraita teaches that Rabbi Neḥemya and Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov say: Actually, carrying the produce beyond four cubits is prohibited, unless it was returned to its place unwittingly, and by inference, only if it was unwittingly returned is it indeed permitted; however, if it was returned intentionally, it is not permitted. And since Rabbi Neḥemya maintains that produce that was intentionally returned to its place is forbidden, by inference, the first tanna holds that even if it was returned intentionally, it is also permitted. If so, the preceding explanation cannot be accepted, and the Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from here that Rav Pappa’s opinion is supported by the opinion of the first tanna.

אמר רב נחמן אמר שמואל היה מהלך ואינו יודע תחום שבת מהלך אלפים פסיעות בינוניות וזו היא תחום שבת

Rav Naḥman said that Shmuel said: If one was walking in a certain place and does not know where the Shabbat limit lies, he may take two thousand medium strides in each direction from the spot he acquired as his place of residence, and this is the Shabbat limit, for a medium stride is approximately a cubit.

ואמר רב נחמן אמר שמואל שבת בבקעה והקיפוה נכרים מחיצה בשבת מהלך אלפים אמה ומטלטל בכולה על ידי זריקה

And Rav Naḥman also said that Shmuel said: If one established residence in a valley, and gentiles surrounded the entire area with a partition for the purpose of residence on Shabbat, he may walk only two thousand cubits in each direction, as he cannot rely on partitions that were not present when he acquired his place of residence. However, he may carry in the entire partitioned area, as in any other private domain, even in the part that is beyond his two thousand cubits, but only by means of throwing, as he himself cannot accompany the object past two thousand cubits.

ורב הונא אמר מהלך אלפים אמה ומטלטל ארבע אמות וניטלטל בכולה על ידי זריקה

Rav Huna said: He may walk two thousand cubits; however, even within this area he may carry objects only a distance of four cubits, as in a karmelit. The Gemara asks: And let him be permitted to carry in the entire partitioned area by means of throwing. Although he himself is limited in where he may walk, the partitions render it a private domain, and he should be permitted to carry in the entire area.

שמא ימשך אחר חפצו

The Gemara answers: The Sages prohibited this as a preventive measure, lest he be drawn after his object. It is prohibited for him to leave the two thousand cubit limit, but were he permitted to carry by means of throwing, he might follow his object and go out beyond his permitted limit.

באלפים מיהת ליטלטל כי אורחיה

The Gemara asks: Within two thousand cubits, at any rate, let him carry the object in his usual manner. Since he may traverse this area, there should be no concern that he might come to be drawn after the object.

משום דהוי כמחיצה שנפרצה במלואה למקום האסור לה

The Gemara answers that this is prohibited due to another aspect of the laws of eiruvin, namely because this is similar to the case of a partition that is breached in its entirety, leaving the space open to a place into which it is prohibited to carry. Since he may not carry more than two thousand cubits, and the enclosed area is larger than two thousand cubits, the area that is permitted to him is breached in its entirety, left open to an area that is prohibited to him. Consequently, carrying is prohibited in the entire area, even by means of throwing.

חייא בר רב אמר מהלך אלפים אמה ומטלטל באלפים אמה כמאן דלא כרב נחמן ולא כרב הונא

However, Ḥiyya bar Rav said: In that case, he may walk two thousand cubits, and he may also carry objects within these two thousand cubits. The Gemara poses a question: In accordance with whose opinion did Ḥiyya bar Rav issue his ruling? It is neither in accordance with the opinion of Rav Naḥman, nor in accordance with the opinion of Rav Huna, while this dispute would appear to leave no place for a third opinion.

אימא מטלטל בארבע אי הכי היינו דרב הונא אימא וכן אמר רבי חייא בר רב

The Gemara answers: Read Ḥiyya bar Rav’s ruling as follows: He may carry objects only a distance of four cubits. The Gemara asks: If so, this is the same as the opinion of Rav Huna. The Gemara answers: Read it then as follows: And similarly, Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Rav said.

אמר ליה רב נחמן לרב הונא לא תיפלוג עליה דשמואל דתניא כוותיה דתניא

Rav Naḥman said to Rav Huna: Do not argue with the opinion of Shmuel as cited by Rav Naḥman with regard to a field surrounded by a partition on Shabbat, as it was taught in a baraita in accordance with his opinion. As it was taught in a baraita: