Commentary page

Eruvin 42b

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 42b

Eruvin 42b. The full printed text of this folio side — 21 numbered segments, about 330 words — with the classic commentaries printed on the page.

Original text

Segment 1

הָיָה מוֹדֵד וּבָא, וְכָלְתָה מִדָּתוֹ בַּחֲצִי הָעִיר — מוּתָּר לְטַלְטֵל בְּכׇל הָעִיר כּוּלָּהּ, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יַעֲבוֹר אֶת הַתְּחוּם בְּרַגְלָיו. מַאי מְטַלְטֵל, לָאו עַל יְדֵי זְרִיקָה?

If a person was measuring the two thousand cubits of his Shabbat limit from the spot where he deposited his eiruv , and his measuring ended in the middle of the city, he is permitted to carry throughout the city, provided that he does not overstep the limit by foot, i.e., that he does not walk beyond his permitted limit in the middle of the city. If he cannot walk about on foot, how can he carry throughout the city? Is it not by means of throwing? This presents a difficulty for Rav Huna, who prohibits carrying by means of throwing in a place where it is prohibited to walk.

Segment 2

אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: לָא, עַל יְדֵי מְשִׁיכָה.

Rav Huna said: No, it means that he may carry in the city by means of pulling, i.e., he is permitted to pull objects from the other side of the city to the side where he is permitted to walk, for in this manner there is no concern that he might be drawn after the object, since he is bringing the object to him.

Segment 3

אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: הָיָה מוֹדֵד וּבָא, וְכָלְתָה מִדָּתוֹ בַּחֲצִי חָצֵר — אֵין לוֹ אֶלָּא חֲצִי חָצֵר.

Similarly, Rav Huna said: If a person was measuring the two thousand cubits of his Shabbat limit from the spot where he deposited his eiruv , and his measuring ended in the middle of a courtyard, he has only half the courtyard in which to walk.

Segment 4

פְּשִׁיטָא! אֵימָא: יֵשׁ לוֹ חֲצִי חָצֵר.

The Gemara raises a difficulty: It is obvious that he is not permitted to walk beyond his Shabbat limit. The Gemara answers: Read Rav Huna’s statement as follows: He has half a courtyard, i.e., Rav Huna addresses a different aspect of the issue; namely, he permits carrying in half the courtyard.

Segment 5

הַאי נָמֵי פְּשִׁיטָא? מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: לֵיחוּשׁ דִּלְמָא אָתֵי לְטַלְטוֹלֵי בְּכוּלַּהּ, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

The Gemara asks: However, this too is obvious, for why should it be prohibited for him to carry in a private domain where he is permitted to walk? The Gemara answers: Lest you say that we should be concerned that if he is permitted to carry in half the courtyard, he might come to carry in the entire courtyard. Consequently, Rav Huna teaches us that this concern is not taken into account.

Segment 6

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן, מוֹדֶה לִי הוּנָא: הָיָה מוֹדֵד וּבָא וְכָלְתָה מִדָּתוֹ עַל שְׂפַת תִּקְרָה — מוּתָּר לְטַלְטֵל בְּכׇל הַבַּיִת.

Rav Naḥman said: Rav Huna agrees with me that carrying is not prohibited in a comparable case, out of concern that the person be drawn after the object he is carrying: If a person was measuring the two thousand cubits of his Shabbat limit from the spot where he deposited his eiruv , and his measuring ended at the edge of the roof of a house, most of which stood outside his Shabbat limit, he is permitted to carry throughout the house by means of throwing.

Segment 7

מַאי טַעְמָא — הוֹאִיל וְתִקְרַת הַבַּיִת חוֹבֶטֶת.

What is the reason that Rav Huna agrees in this case? Because the edge of the roof of the house is regarded as if it presses down vertically at the end of his Shabbat limit, thus creating a partition, and so there is no concern that he might pass beyond this partition and be drawn after his object.

Segment 8

אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב נָתָן: כְּתַנָּאֵי. הוֹלִיכוּהוּ לְעִיר אַחֶרֶת, וּנְתָנוּהוּ בְּדִיר אוֹ בְּסַהַר, רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה אוֹמְרִים: מְהַלֵּךְ אֶת כּוּלָּהּ. וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמְרִים: אֵין לוֹ אֶלָּא אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת.

Rav Huna, son of Rav Natan, said: The dispute between Shmuel and Rav Huna is parallel to a dispute between tanna’im recorded in the mishna: If the gentiles brought him to a different city beyond his Shabbat limit, or if they put him in a pen or a stable, the Sages disagree. Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya say: He may walk about the entire stable or pen. Since they are enclosed by a partition, their entire area is considered like only four cubits. Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Akiva say: He has only four cubits from where he was deposited.

Segment 9

מַאי לָאו, רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה דְּאָמְרוּ: מְהַלֵּךְ אֶת כּוּלָּהּ — דְּלָא גָּזְרִי הִילּוּךְ דִּיר וְסַהַר אַטּוּ הִילּוּךְ בְּבִקְעָה;

Is it not the case that Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, who said: He may walk about the entire area, do not prohibit walking in a pen or a stable due to walking in a field where one is limited to four cubits? Rather, they say that since the stable is surrounded by partitions, it is not similar to a field, in which a person may not leave his four cubits.

Segment 10

וּמִדְּהִילּוּךְ אַטּוּ הִילּוּךְ לָא גָּזְרִי, טִלְטוּל אַטּוּ הִילּוּךְ לָא גָּזְרִי.

And since they did not prohibit walking in a pen or a stable due to the limits imposed on walking in a field, they would certainly not prohibit carrying in a pen due to the limits imposed on walking in a field. Rather, they would permit a person to carry in a field that had been enclosed on Shabbat by gentiles, and even to throw into the part lying beyond his two thousand cubits, parallel to the opinion of Shmuel who did not decree against this.

Segment 11

וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא דְּאוֹמְרִים: אֵין לוֹ אֶלָּא אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת, דְּגָזְרִי הִילּוּךְ דִּיר וְסַהַר אַטּוּ הִילּוּךְ דְּבִקְעָהּ; וּמִדְּהִילּוּךְ אַטּוּ הִילּוּךְ גָּזְרִי, טִלְטוּל אַטּוּ הִילּוּךְ נָמֵי גָּזְרִי.

And is it not the case that Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Akiva, who say that he has only four cubits, prohibit walking in a pen or a stable due to the limits imposed on walking in a field? And since they prohibit walking in a pen or a stable due to the limits imposed on walking in a field, they would also prohibit carrying past the two thousand cubit limit by means of throwing due to the limits imposed on walking past there, in accordance with Rav Huna’s opinion.

Segment 12

מִמַּאי? דִּילְמָא כִּי לָא גָּזְרִי רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה הִילּוּךְ סַהַר וְדִיר אַטּוּ הִילּוּךְ בִּקְעָה, הָנֵי מִילֵּי הָתָם דִּשְׁנֵי מְקוֹמוֹת הֵן.

The Gemara rejects this comparison: From what do you infer that this is the case? Perhaps Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya did not prohibit walking in a pen or a stable due to the limits imposed on walking in a field, but this applies only there, because they are two distinct places. In other words, the pen and stable are enclosed by partitions, while the field is not, and there is no reason to prohibit walking in one place out of concern that one might come to act improperly in a different place.

Segment 13

אֲבָל טִלְטוּל אַטּוּ הִילּוּךְ דְּמָקוֹם אֶחָד הוּא, הָכִי נָמֵי דְּגָזְרִי, גְּזֵירָה שֶׁמָּא יִמָּשֵׁךְ אַחֵר חֶפְצוֹ.

However, as for the prohibition of carrying due to the limits imposed on walking, where it is all one place, might we also say that even Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya would decree against carrying as a preventive measure, lest the person be drawn after his object and come to walk in a place prohibited to him.

Segment 14

וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא נָמֵי, מִמַּאי דְּמִשּׁוּם דְּגָזְרִי הוּא? דִּילְמָא מִשּׁוּם דְּקָא סָבְרִי כִּי אָמְרִינַן כָּל הַבַּיִת כּוּלּוֹ כְּאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת דָּמֵי, הָנֵי מִילֵּי הֵיכָא דְּשָׁבַת בַּאֲוִיר מְחִיצּוֹת מִבְּעוֹד יוֹם.

The comparison can also be rejected from another angle: And with regard to Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Akiva too, from what can it be inferred that they prohibit walking beyond four cubits due to a decree? Perhaps it is because they hold that when we say that the entire house is considered like four cubits, this applies only where one acquired his place of residence within the airspace of the partitions of the house while it was still day, i.e., prior to the onset of Shabbat.

Segment 15

אֲבָל הֵיכָא דְּלֹא שָׁבַת בַּאֲוִיר מְחִיצּוֹת מִבְּעוֹד יוֹם — לָא.

However, where he did not acquire his place of residence within the airspace of the partitions of the house while it was still day, the house, and all the more so the stable or pen, is not considered as four cubits; rather, it is measured based on the actual number of cubits it contains. Based on this explanation, this ruling indicates nothing with regard to the issue of throwing beyond the two-thousand cubit limit. Consequently, the Gemara rejects the link between the dispute of the tanna’im in the mishna and that of Rav Naḥman and Rav Huna.

Segment 16

אָמַר רַב: הִלְכְתָא כְּרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל בְּדִיר וְסַהַר וּסְפִינָה. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: הִלְכְתָא כְּרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, בִּסְפִינָה, אֲבָל בְּדִיר וְסַהַר — לָא.

Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Gamliel with regard to a pen, a stable, and a boat. And Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Gamliel with regard to a boat, but not with regard to a stable or a pen.

Segment 17

דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא מִיהַת הֲלָכָה כְּרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל בִּסְפִינָה, מַאי טַעְמָא?

The Gemara poses a question: At any rate, all agree, i.e., both Rav and Shmuel, that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Gamliel with regard to a boat. What is the reason that the halakha is different in this case than in the other cases?

Segment 18

אָמַר רַבָּה: הוֹאִיל וְשָׁבַת בַּאֲוִיר מְחִיצּוֹת מִבְּעוֹד יוֹם.

Rabba said: This is since he acquired his place of residence within the partitions of the boat while it was still day, in which case it is reasonable to say that the entire boat is considered as if it is only four cubits.

Segment 19

רַבִּי זֵירָא אָמַר: הוֹאִיל וּסְפִינָה נוֹטַלְתּוֹ מִתְּחִילַּת אַרְבַּע וּמַנַּחְתּוֹ בְּסוֹף אַרְבַּע.

Rabbi Zeira said: This is since the boat constantly moves the person out of his four cubits, lifting him from the beginning of four cubits and placing him at the end of four cubits. Since in any case he cannot restrict himself to any particular four cubits, even if he wished to do so, it is reasonable to say that he is permitted to walk about the entire boat.

Segment 20

מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ שֶׁנִּפְחֲתוּ דּוֹפְנֵי סְפִינָה. אִי נָמֵי: בְּקוֹפֵץ מִסְּפִינָה לִסְפִינָה.

The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between these two explanations? The Gemara answers: There is a practical difference between them with regard to a case where the walls of the boat were breached, so that the person is no longer located between its partitions. Alternatively, there is a difference with regard to a case where the person jumped from one boat to another, so that he is no longer on the boat where he had acquired his place of residence. In both of these cases, Rabba’s reason no longer applies, but Rabbi Zeira’s reason does.

Segment 21

וְרַבִּי זֵירָא, מַאי טַעְמָא לָא אָמַר כְּרַבָּה? אָמַר לָךְ: מְחִיצּוֹת,

The Gemara asks: As for Rabbi Zeira, what is the reason that he did not state his opinion in accordance with the opinion of Rabba, whose explanation is more straightforward? The Gemara answers: He could have said to you: The sides of a boat are not regarded as proper partitions,

Eruvin 42b

Eruvin 42b

Rashi

Tosafot

Rabbeinu Chananel

Rashba

Ritva

Meiri

Maharsha (Chidushei Halachot)

Maharam

What this page contains

Continue the sequence

Parallel sources

Lessons and study tools

Original text