## Eruvin Daf 47b

###### Eruvin 47b:1
[Eruvin 47b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/47b:1)

שֶׁאֵין מִן הַכֹּל זוֹכֶה אָדָם לִלְמוֹד. וְאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּיוֹסֵף הַכֹּהֵן שֶׁהָלַךְ אֵצֶל רַבּוֹ לְצַיְדָּן לִלְמוֹד תּוֹרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**a person does not merit to learn from everyone,** and it is possible that the only suitable teacher for him lives outside of Eretz Yisrael. **And Rabbi Yosei reported** in support of his position: **It once happened that Yosef the priest went to his teacher in Tzeidan,** outside Eretz Yisrael, **to learn Torah,** although the preeminent Sage of his generation, Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai, lived in Eretz Yisrael.


###### Eruvin 47b:2
[Eruvin 47b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/47b:2)

וְאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי. וּלְמָה לִי? וְהָא אָמְרַתְּ רַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי — הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabbi Yoḥanan said** about this: **The *halakha* is in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yosei.** The Gemara asks: **Why** was it necessary for Rabbi Yoḥanan to issue this ruling? **Didn’t you say:** In disputes between **Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei, the *halakha* is in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yosei,** and so it should be obvious that this *halakha* is in accordance with his opinion? Apparently, this principle is not accepted.


###### Eruvin 47b:3
[Eruvin 47b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/47b:3)

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: אִיצְטְרִיךְ, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: הָנֵי מִילֵּי — בְּמַתְנִיתִין, אֲבָל בְּבָרַיְיתָא — אֵימָא לָא. קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said: It was** nonetheless **necessary** to issue this ruling, **it** could have **entered your mind to say** that **this** principle **applies** only with regard to disputes **in the Mishna. But** with regard to disputes **in a *baraita*, say no,** the principle does not apply. Therefore, Rabbi Yoḥanan **is teaching us** that the *halakha* is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei in this case as well.


###### Eruvin 47b:4
[Eruvin 47b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/47b:4)

אֶלָּא הָכִי קָאָמַר: הָנֵי כְּלָלֵי לָאו דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל נִינְהוּ, דְּהָא רַב לֵית לֵיהּ הָנֵי כְּלָלֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Since no proof has been found to support Rav Mesharshiya’s statement that there are no principles for issuing halakhic rulings, the Gemara emends his statement. **Rather, this** is what Rav Mesharshiya **is saying: These principles were not accepted by all** authorities, **as** in fact **Rav did not accept these principles,** as demonstrated above.


###### Eruvin 47b:5
[Eruvin 47b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/47b:5)

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: חֶפְצֵי נָכְרִי אֵין קוֹנִין שְׁבִיתָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara returns to addressing acquisition of residence. **Rav Yehuda said** that **Shmuel said: Objects belonging to a gentile do not acquire residence** and do not have a Shabbat limit, either on their own account or due to the ownership of the gentile. Accordingly, if they were brought into a town from outside its limits, a Jew may carry them two thousand cubits in each direction.


###### Eruvin 47b:6
[Eruvin 47b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/47b:6)

לְמַאן, אִילֵּימָא לְרַבָּנַן — פְּשִׁיטָא! הַשְׁתָּא חֶפְצֵי הֶפְקֵר דְּלֵית לְהוּ בְּעָלִים, אֵין קוֹנִין שְׁבִיתָה. חֶפְצֵי הַנׇּכְרִי, דְּאִית לְהוּ בְּעָלִים, מִיבַּעְיָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **In accordance with whose** opinion was this statement made? **If you say** that it was made **in accordance with** the opinion of **the Rabbis,** it is **obvious. Now,** if **unclaimed objects, which do not have owners, do not acquire residence, is it necessary** to say that **a gentile’s objects, which have an owner,** do not acquire residence?


###### Eruvin 47b:7
[Eruvin 47b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/47b:7)

אֶלָּא אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי, וְקָא מַשְׁמַע לַן: אֵימַר דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי קוֹנִין שְׁבִיתָה — הָנֵי מִילֵּי חֶפְצֵי הֶפְקֵר, דְּלֵית לְהוּ בְּעָלִים. אֲבָל חֶפְצֵי הַנׇּכְרִי, דְּאִית לְהוּ בְּעָלִים — לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** this statement must have been made **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri, and** Shmuel **is teaching us** that when we **say** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri said** that objects **acquire residence, this applies only** to **unclaimed objects, which have no owners; but** it does **not** apply to **objects** belonging **to a gentile, which have owners.**


###### Eruvin 47b:8
[Eruvin 47b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/47b:8)

מֵיתִיבִי, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: הַשּׁוֹאֵל כְּלִי מִן הַנׇּכְרִי בְּיוֹם טוֹב, וְכֵן הַמַּשְׁאִיל לוֹ לַנׇּכְרִי כְּלִי מֵעֶרֶב יוֹם טוֹב וְהֶחְזִירוֹ לוֹ בְּיוֹם טוֹב, וְהַכֵּלִים וְהָאוֹצָרוֹת שֶׁשָּׁבְתוּ בְּתוֹךְ הַתְּחוּם — יֵשׁ לָהֶן אַלְפַּיִם אַמָּה לְכׇל רוּחַ. וְנׇכְרִי שֶׁהֵבִיא לוֹ פֵּירוֹת מִחוּץ לַתְּחוּם — הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יְזִיזֵם מִמְּקוֹמָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The Gemara raises an objection** from a *baraita*. **Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says:** With regard to a Jew **who borrowed a utensil from a gentile on a Festival, and similarly** with regard to a Jew **who lent a utensil to a gentile on the eve of a Festival and** the gentile **returned it to him on the Festival, and** likewise **utensils or bins that acquired residence within the** city’s Shabbat **limit,** in all these cases the utensils **have,** i.e., can be moved, **two thousand cubits in each direction. But if a gentile brought** the Jew **produce from outside** the Shabbat **limit,** the Jew **may not move it from its place.**


###### Eruvin 47b:9
[Eruvin 47b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/47b:9)

אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא קָסָבַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי חֶפְצֵי נׇכְרִי קוֹנִין שְׁבִיתָה, הָא מַנִּי — רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי הִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Granted if you say that Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri holds** that **objects that belong to a gentile acquire residence,** one can say that **this** *baraita* is in accordance with **whose** opinion? **It** is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri,** that even a gentile’s objects acquire residence.


###### Eruvin 47b:10
[Eruvin 47b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/47b:10)

אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ קָסָבַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי חֶפְצֵי הַנׇּכְרִי אֵין קוֹנִין שְׁבִיתָה, הָא מַנִּי — לָא רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי וְלָא רַבָּנַן!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**However, if you say that Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri holds** that **objects belonging to a gentile do not acquire residence,** in accordance with **whose** opinion is **this** *baraita*? It is **neither** in accordance with that of **Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri nor** that of **the Rabbis.**


###### Eruvin 47b:11
[Eruvin 47b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/47b:11)

לְעוֹלָם קָסָבַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי חֶפְצֵי הַנׇּכְרִי קוֹנִין שְׁבִיתָה, וּשְׁמוּאֵל דְּאָמַר כְּרַבָּנַן, וּדְקָאָמְרַתְּ: לְרַבָּנַן פְּשִׁיטָא — מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: גְּזֵירָה בְּעָלִים דְּנׇכְרִי אַטּוּ בְּעָלִים דְּיִשְׂרָאֵל, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Actually,** say that **Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri holds** that **a gentile’s objects acquire residence,** and that **Shmuel,** who said that they do not acquire residence, **spoke in accordance with** the opinion of **the Rabbis. And** with regard to **that which you said,** that **according to** the opinion of **the Rabbis,** it is **obvious** that a gentile’s objects do not acquire residence, so this ruling need not have been stated at all. The Gemara answers: That is incorrect, as **you might have said** that the Sages should issue a **decree** in the case of **gentile owners** that his objects acquire residence in his location and that they may not be carried beyond two thousand cubits from that spot, lest people carry objects belonging to **a Jewish owners** beyond their two-thousand-cubit limit. Therefore, it **is teaching us** that no decree was issued.


###### Eruvin 47b:12
[Eruvin 47b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/47b:12)

וְרַב חִיָּיא בַּר אָבִין אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: חֶפְצֵי נׇכְרִי קוֹנִין שְׁבִיתָה, גְּזֵירָה בְּעָלִים דְּנׇכְרִי אַטּוּ בְּעָלִים דְּיִשְׂרָאֵל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin,** however, **said** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Objects that belong to a gentile** indeed **acquire residence,** due to the aforementioned **decree** issued in the case of **gentile owners due to** the case of **Jewish owners.**


###### Eruvin 47b:13
[Eruvin 47b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/47b:13)

הָנְהוּ דִּכְרֵי דַּאֲתוֹ לִמְבָרַכְתָּא, שְׁרָא לְהוּ רָבָא לִבְנֵי מָחוֹזָא לְמִיזְבַּן מִינַּיְיהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara relates that **certain rams were brought to** the town of **Mavrakhta** on Shabbat. **Rava permitted the residents of Meḥoza to purchase them** and take them home, although Mavrakhta was outside the Shabbat limit of Meḥoza and could be reached by the residents of Meḥoza only by way of an *eiruv* of Shabbat limits.


###### Eruvin 47b:14
[Eruvin 47b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/47b:14)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבִינָא לְרָבָא: מַאי דַּעְתָּיךְ, דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: חֶפְצֵי נׇכְרִי אֵין קוֹנִין שְׁבִיתָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ravina said to Rava: What is your reasoning** in permitting these rams? You must rely upon that which **Rav Yehuda said** that **Shmuel said: Objects belonging to a gentile do not acquire residence,** and so they are permitted even if they were brought to Meḥoza from outside the Shabbat limit.


###### Eruvin 47b:15
[Eruvin 47b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/47b:15)

וְהָא שְׁמוּאֵל וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן — הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, וְאָמַר רַב חִיָּיא בַּר אָבִין אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: חֶפְצֵי נׇכְרִי קוֹנִין שְׁבִיתָה, גְּזֵירָה בְּעָלִים דְּנׇכְרִי אַטּוּ בְּעָלִים דְּיִשְׂרָאֵל?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Isn’t** the principle, in disputes between **Shmuel and Rabbi Yoḥanan,** that **the *halakha* is in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yoḥanan? And Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin** already **said** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Objects that belong to a gentile acquire residence,** based on **a decree** in the case of **a gentile owner, due to** the case of **a Jewish owner.** The *halakha* is in accordance with his opinion.


###### Eruvin 47b:16
[Eruvin 47b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/47b:16)

הֲדַר אָמַר רָבָא: לִיזְדַּבְּנוּ לִבְנֵי מְבָרַכְתָּא, דְּכוּלַּהּ מְבָרַכְתָּא לְדִידְהוּ כְּאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת דָּמְיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava reconsidered and said: Let** the rams **be sold** only **to the residents of Mavrakhta.** Although the rams acquired residence, and may be moved only four cubits as they were taken beyond their Shabbat limit, the legal status of **all Mavrakhta is like four cubits for them.** However, they may not be sold to the residents of Meḥoza, as the *halakha* is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan.


###### Eruvin 47b:17
[Eruvin 47b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/47b:17)

תָּנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא: חֵרֶם שֶׁבֵּין תְּחוּמֵי שַׁבָּת — צָרִיךְ

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Ḥiyya taught** a *baraita*: **A water-filled ditch [*ḥerem*] that** lies **between** two **Shabbat limits requires**