Commentary page

Eruvin 42a

This page gathers the commentary on one source unit: the classic commentaries as they are printed, the sources the text cites, the sages named in it and direct links back to the text.

Read the full text in the reader

Babylonian Talmud · folio map

Eruvin 42a

Eruvin 42a. The full printed text of this folio side — 15 numbered segments, about 263 words — with the classic commentaries printed on the page.

Original text

Segment 1

רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה אוֹמֵר: בִּמְקוֹמָן — יֵאָכֵלוּ, שֶׁלֹּא בִּמְקוֹמָן — לֹא יֵאָכֵלוּ.

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.

Segment 2

מַאי בִּמְקוֹמָן? אִילֵּימָא: בִּמְקוֹמָן — בְּמֵזִיד, וְהָא קָתָנֵי בְּהֶדְיָא, רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמְרִים: לְעוֹלָם אֲסוּרִין עַד שֶׁיַּחְזְרוּ לִמְקוֹמָן שׁוֹגְגִין. בְּשׁוֹגֵג — אִין, בְּמֵזִיד — לָא.

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.

Segment 3

אֶלָּא לָאו: בִּמְקוֹמָן — בְּשׁוֹגֵג, וְחַסּוֹרֵי מְחַסְּרָא, וְהָכִי קָתָנֵי: פֵּירוֹת שֶׁיָּצְאוּ חוּץ לַתְּחוּם, בְּשׁוֹגֵג — יֵאָכֵלוּ, בְּמֵזִיד — לֹא יֵאָכֵלוּ.

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.

Segment 4

בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים — שֶׁלֹּא בִּמְקוֹמָן, אֲבָל בִּמְקוֹמָן — אֲפִילּוּ בְּמֵזִיד יֵאָכֵלוּ. וַאֲתָא רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה לְמֵימַר: אֲפִילּוּ בִּמְקוֹמָן נָמֵי, בְּשׁוֹגֵג — אִין, בְּמֵזִיד — לָא.

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.

Segment 5

לָא, בְּמֵזִיד בִּמְקוֹמָן — דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דְּאָסוּר, וְהָכָא בְּשׁוֹגֵג שֶׁלֹּא בִּמְקוֹמָן פְּלִיגִי: תַּנָּא קַמָּא סָבַר בְּשׁוֹגֵג שְׁרֵי שֶׁלֹּא בִּמְקוֹמָן, וְרַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה סָבַר אֲפִילּוּ שׁוֹגֵג, בִּמְקוֹמָן — אִין, שֶׁלֹּא בִּמְקוֹמָן — לָא.

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.

Segment 6

וְהָא מִדְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמְרִים: לְעוֹלָם אֲסוּרִין עַד שֶׁיַּחְזְרוּ לִמְקוֹמָן שׁוֹגְגִין, שׁוֹגֵג — אִין, בְּמֵזִיד — לָא, מִכְּלָל דְּתַנָּא קַמָּא סָבַר: בְּמֵזִיד נָמֵי שְׁרֵי. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

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 .

Segment 7

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הָיָה מְהַלֵּךְ וְאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ תְּחוּם שַׁבָּת, מְהַלֵּךְ אַלְפַּיִם פְּסִיעוֹת בֵּינוֹנִיּוֹת, וְזוֹ הִיא תְּחוּם שַׁבָּת.

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.

Segment 8

וְאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: שָׁבַת בְּבִקְעָה, וְהִקִּיפוּהָ נׇכְרִים מְחִיצָה בְּשַׁבָּת — מְהַלֵּךְ אַלְפַּיִם אַמָּה, וּמְטַלְטֵל בְּכוּלָּהּ עַל יְדֵי זְרִיקָה.

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.

Segment 9

וְרַב הוּנָא אָמַר: מְהַלֵּךְ אַלְפַּיִם אַמָּה, וּמְטַלְטֵל אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת. וְנִיטַּלְטֵל בְּכוּלַּהּ עַל יְדֵי זְרִיקָה?

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.

Segment 10

שֶׁמָּא יִמָּשֵׁךְ אַחַר חֶפְצוֹ.

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.

Segment 11

בְּאַלְפַּיִם מִיהַת לִיטַלְטֵל כִּי אוֹרְחֵיהּ!

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.

Segment 12

מִשּׁוּם דְּהָוֵי כִּמְחִיצָה שֶׁנִּפְרְצָה בִּמְלוֹאָהּ לְמָקוֹם הָאָסוּר לָהּ.

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.

Segment 13

חִיָּיא בַּר רַב אָמַר: מְהַלֵּךְ אַלְפַּיִם אַמָּה, וּמְטַלְטֵל בְּאַלְפַּיִם אַמָּה. כְּמַאן? דְּלָא כְּרַב נַחְמָן וְלָא כְּרַב הוּנָא!

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.

Segment 14

אֵימָא: מְטַלְטֵל בְּאַרְבַּע. אִי הָכִי, הַיְינוּ דְּרַב הוּנָא. אֵימָא: וְכֵן אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר רַב.

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.

Segment 15

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב נַחְמָן לְרַב הוּנָא: לָא תִּיפְלוֹג עֲלֵיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל, דְּתַנְיָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ. דְּתַנְיָא:

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 :

Eruvin 42a

Eruvin 42a

Rashi

Tosafot

Rabbeinu Chananel

Rashba

Ritva

Meiri

Maharsha (Chidushei Halachot)

Maharam

What this page contains

Continue the sequence

Parallel sources

Lessons and study tools

Sages named on this page

Original text