## Eruvin Daf 48a

###### Eruvin 48a:1
[Eruvin 48a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/48a:1)

מְחִיצָה שֶׁל בַּרְזֶל לְהַפְסִיקוֹ. מְחַיֵּיךְ עֲלֵיהּ רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**an iron partition to divide it** into two separate areas, so that the residents of both places may draw water from it. **Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina,** would **laugh at this** teaching, as he deemed it unnecessary.


###### Eruvin 48a:2
[Eruvin 48a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/48a:2)

מַאי טַעְמָא קָא מְחַיֵּיךְ? אִילֵּימָא מִשּׁוּם דְּתָנֵי לַהּ כְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי לְחוּמְרָא, וְאִיהוּ סְבִירָא לֵיהּ כְּרַבָּנַן לְקוּלָּא. ומִשּׁוּם דְּסָבַר לְקוּלָּא, מַאן דְּתָנֵי לְחוּמְרָא מְחַיֵּיךְ עֲלֵהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Why did** Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, **laugh? If you say** that it is **because** Rabbi Ḥiyya **taught** the *baraita* **stringently, in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri,** saying that ownerless objects acquire a place of residence, **and** Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina **holds leniently, in accordance with** the opinion of **the Rabbis** and says that those objects do not acquire residence, this is difficult. Just **because he holds leniently, does he laugh at one who teaches stringently?**


###### Eruvin 48a:3
[Eruvin 48a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/48a:3)

אֶלָּא, מִשּׁוּם דְּתַנְיָא: נְהָרוֹת הַמּוֹשְׁכִין וּמַעְיָינוֹת הַנּוֹבְעִין — הֲרֵי הֵן כְּרַגְלֵי כׇּל אָדָם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** he must have laughed for a different reason, **as it was taught** in a *baraita*: **Flowing rivers and streaming springs are like the feet of all people,** as the water did not acquire residence in any particular spot. Consequently, one who draws water from rivers and springs may carry it wherever he is permitted to walk, even if it had previously been located outside his Shabbat limit. According to Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, the same *halakha* should apply to the water in the ditch.


###### Eruvin 48a:4
[Eruvin 48a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/48a:4)

וְדִילְמָא בִּמְכוּנָּסִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this argument: No proof can be brought from this ruling concerning rivers and springs, as **perhaps** we are dealing here with a ditch of still, **collected** water that belongs exclusively to the residents of that particular place.


###### Eruvin 48a:5
[Eruvin 48a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/48a:5)

אֶלָּא, מִשּׁוּם דְּקָתָנֵי: ״צָרִיךְ מְחִיצָה שֶׁל בַּרְזֶל לְהַפְסִיקוֹ״. וּמַאי שְׁנָא קָנִים דְּלָא — דְּעָיְילִי בְּהוּ מַיָּא, שֶׁל בַּרְזֶל נָמֵי — עָיְילִי בְּהוּ מַיָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, must have laughed for a different reason, **because** Rabbi Ḥiyya **taught** in his *baraita* that the ditch **requires an iron partition to divide it** into two separate sections. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, argued: **Why is** a partition of **reeds different, that** we should say it is **not** effective in that case? Apparently, it is **because water enters it** and passes from one limit to the other. But this is difficult, as **even** in the case of a partition **of iron, water enters it** and passes from one limit to another, as it cannot be hermetically sealed. If so, what does the iron accomplish that the reeds do not accomplish?


###### Eruvin 48a:6
[Eruvin 48a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/48a:6)

וְדִילְמָא ״צָרִיךְ וְאֵין לוֹ תַּקָּנָה״ קָאָמַר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty: **Perhaps** the *baraita* **is saying** as follows: A water-filled ditch that lies between two Shabbat limits **requires** an iron partition to divide it into two separate sections. **But there is no remedy,** because it is impossible to hermetically seal a partition of that kind, and therefore its water may not be used.


###### Eruvin 48a:7
[Eruvin 48a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/48a:7)

מִשּׁוּם דְּקַל הוּא שֶׁהֵקֵילּוּ חֲכָמִים בְּמַיִם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** you must say that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, laughed at Rabbi Ḥiyya’s teaching for a different reason, **because the Sages were lenient with regard to water.** The Rabbis said that a minimal partition suffices in the case of water. Consequently, there should be no need for an iron partition.


###### Eruvin 48a:8
[Eruvin 48a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/48a:8)

כִּדְרַבִּי טַבְלָא, דִּבְעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַבִּי טַבְלָא מֵרַב: מְחִיצָה תְּלוּיָה, מַהוּ שֶׁתַּתִּיר בְּחוּרְבָּה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This is **similar to** the case involving **Rabbi Tavla, as Rabbi Tavla asked of Rav: Does a suspended partition,** i.e., a partition that is suspended and does not reach the ground, **permit** carrying **in a ruin?** Do we say that the remnants of the walls that are suspended in the air are considered as though they descend to the ground and close off the area, so that it is regarded as a private domain?


###### Eruvin 48a:9
[Eruvin 48a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/48a:9)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֵין מְחִיצָה תְּלוּיָה מַתֶּרֶת אֶלָּא בְּמַיִם, קַל הוּא שֶׁהֵקֵילּוּ חֲכָמִים בְּמַיִם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav **said to him: A suspended partition** of this kind **permits** carrying **only** in the case of **water,** as **the Sages were lenient with regard to water.** Just as the Sages were lenient about water with respect to a suspended partition, so too they should be lenient here and not require an iron partition; rather, a minimal partition should suffice, even one made of reeds.


###### Eruvin 48a:10
[Eruvin 48a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/48a:10)

וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים אֵין לוֹ אֶלָּא אַרְבַּע וְכוּ׳. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הַיְינוּ תַּנָּא קַמָּא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna taught: **And the Rabbis say** that if a person is sleeping at the onset of Shabbat and has no intention of acquiring residence in his location, **he has only four cubits,** whereas Rabbi Yehuda says he can walk four cubits in any direction he chooses. The Gemara asks: What is the dispute? The opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda is** the same as that of **the first *tanna*,** i.e., the Rabbis.


###### Eruvin 48a:11
[Eruvin 48a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/48a:11)

אָמַר רָבָא: שְׁמוֹנֶה עַל שְׁמוֹנֶה אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ. תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: יֵשׁ לוֹ שְׁמוֹנֶה עַל שְׁמוֹנֶה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said: There is** a practical difference **between them,** as the Rabbis permit him to carry in an area of **eight by eight** cubits. Rabbi Yehuda maintains that he has only four cubits, in the direction of his choosing, whereas according to the Rabbis he has four cubits in every direction, which totals an area of eight by eight cubits. **That was also taught** explicitly in a *baraita*: **He has eight by eight** cubits; this is **the statement of Rabbi Meir,** which is the opinion of the Rabbis of the mishna.


###### Eruvin 48a:12
[Eruvin 48a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/48a:12)

וְאָמַר רָבָא: מַחֲלוֹקֶת לְהַלֵּךְ, אֲבָל לְטַלְטֵל דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל: אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת — אִין, טְפֵי — לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rava** further **stated:** This **dispute** between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda relates only **to walking, but as for carrying** objects, **all agree** that to carry them **four cubits** is **indeed** permitted; but to carry them **more** than that is **not.**


###### Eruvin 48a:13
[Eruvin 48a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/48a:13)

וְהָנֵי אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת הֵיכָא כְּתִיבָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara inquires about the basis of this law: **These four cubits** within which a person is always permitted to walk on Shabbat, **where are they written** in the Torah?


###### Eruvin 48a:14
[Eruvin 48a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/48a:14)

כִּדְתַנְיָא: ״שְׁבוּ אִישׁ תַּחְתָּיו״ — כְּתַחְתָּיו. [וְכַמָּה תַּחְתָּיו] גּוּפוֹ שָׁלֹשׁ אַמּוֹת, וְאַמָּה כְּדֵי לִפְשׁוֹט יָדָיו וְרַגְלָיו — דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: גּוּפוֹ שָׁלֹשׁ אַמּוֹת, וְאַמָּה כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּטּוֹל חֵפֶץ מִתַּחַת מַרְגְּלוֹתָיו וּמַנִּיחַ תַּחַת מְרַאֲשׁוֹתָיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **As it was taught** in a *baraita*: The verse **“Remain every man in his place;** let no man go out of his place on the seventh day” (Exodus 16:29), means one must restrict his movement to an area **equal to his place. And how much is** the area of **his place?** A person’s **body** typically measures **three cubits, and an** additional **cubit** is needed **in order** to allow him **to spread out his hands and feet,** this is **the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says:** A person’s **body** measures **three cubits, and an** additional **cubit** is needed **in order** to allow him **to pick up an object from under his feet and place it under his head,** meaning, to give him room to maneuver.


###### Eruvin 48a:15
[Eruvin 48a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/48a:15)

מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ, אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ: אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת מְצוּמְצָמוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What is** the practical difference **between them?** The Gemara answers: **There is** a practical difference **between them** in that Rabbi Yehuda provides him with **exactly four cubits** but no more; whereas Rabbi Meir maintains that we do not restrict him in this manner, but rather he is provided with expansive cubits, i.e., enough room to spread out his hands and feet, which measures slightly more than four cubits.


###### Eruvin 48a:16
[Eruvin 48a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/48a:16)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב מְשַׁרְשְׁיָא לִבְרֵיהּ: כִּי עָיְילַתְּ לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב פָּפָּא, בְּעִי מִינֵּיהּ: אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת שֶׁאָמְרוּ, בְּאַמָּה דִּידֵיהּ יָהֲבִינַן לֵיהּ, אוֹ בְּאַמָּה שֶׁל קֹדֶשׁ יָהֲבִינַן לֵיהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Mesharshiya said to his son: When you come before Rav Pappa, inquire of him** as follows: The **four cubits [*ammot*]** mentioned here, **do we grant** them to each person measured **according to his own forearm [*amma*],** i.e., the distance from his elbow to the tip of his index finger, **or do we grant** them measured **according to the cubit [*amma*] used for consecrated** property, i.e., a standard cubit of six medium handbreadths for everyone?


###### Eruvin 48a:17
[Eruvin 48a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/48a:17)

אִם אָמַר לָךְ: אַמּוֹת שֶׁל קֹדֶשׁ יָהֲבִינַן לֵיהּ — עוֹג מֶלֶךְ הַבָּשָׁן מַה תְּהֵא עָלָיו? וְאִם אָמַר לָךְ בְּאַמָּה דִּידֵיהּ יָהֲבִינַן לֵיהּ, אֵימָא לֵיהּ: מַאי טַעְמָא לָא קָתָנֵי לַהּ גַּבֵּי ״יֵשׁ שֶׁאָמְרוּ הַכֹּל לְפִי מַה שֶּׁהוּא אָדָם״?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**If he said to you** that **we provide him** four cubits measured **according to the** standard **cubit used for consecrated** property, **what will be with regard to Og, king of the Bashan,** who is much larger than this? **And if he said to you** that **we provide him** four cubits measured **according to his own forearm, say to him: Why was** this *halakha* **not taught together with** the other matters whose measures are determined by the specific measure of the person involved, in the mishna that teaches: **These are** matters **with regard to which they stated** measures **all in accordance with the** specific measure of the **person** involved. This means that the measures are not fixed, but rather change in accordance with the person in question. If the four cubits are measured according to each person’s forearm, this law should have been included in the mishna.


###### Eruvin 48a:18
[Eruvin 48a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/48a:18)

כִּי אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב פָּפָּא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִי דָּיְיקִינַן כּוּלֵּא הַאי, לָא הֲוֵי תָּנֵינַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**When** Rav Mesharshiya’s son **came before Rav Pappa,** the latter **said to him: Were we to be so precise, we would not** be able **to learn** anything **at all,** as we would be too busy answering such questions.


###### Eruvin 48a:19
[Eruvin 48a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/48a:19)

לְעוֹלָם בְּאַמָּה דִּידֵיהּ יָהֲבִינַן לֵיהּ. וּדְקָא קַשְׁיָא לָךְ: מַאי טַעְמָא לָא קָתָנֵי גַּבֵּי ״יֵשׁ שֶׁאָמְרוּ״? — דְּלָא פְּסִיקָא לֵיהּ, מִשּׁוּם דְּאִיכָּא נַנָּס בְּאֵבָרָיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**In fact, we grant him** four cubits measured **according to his own forearm. And as for that which was difficult for you, why was** this law **not taught** in the mishna that teaches: **These are** matters **with regard to which they stated** measures all in accordance with the specific measure of the person involved? It is because this law **is not** absolutely **clear-cut.** It occasionally must be adjusted, **since there may be** a person **whose limbs are small** in relation to his body. With regard to such a person, we do not measure four cubits according to the size of his own forearm, but rather by the standard cubits used for consecrated property.


###### Eruvin 48a:20
[Eruvin 48a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/48a:20)

הָיוּ שְׁנַיִם מִקְצָת אַמּוֹתָיו שֶׁל זֶה וְכוּ׳. לְמָה לֵיהּ לְמֵימַר ״לְמָה הַדָּבָר דּוֹמֶה״?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna taught: **If there were two** people positioned in a way that **part of the** four **cubits of the one** were subsumed within the four cubits of the other, they each may bring food and eat together in the shared area in the middle. Rabbi Shimon likened this case to that of three courtyards that open one into another, where the two outer courtyards established an *eiruv* with the middle one. The Gemara asks: **Why does** Rabbi Shimon **need to** offer an analogy and **say: To what may this be likened,** and thus connect our case to a different issue?


###### Eruvin 48a:21
[Eruvin 48a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/48a:21)

הָכִי קָאֲמַר לְהוּ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לְרַבָּנַן: מִכְּדִי לְמָה הַדָּבָר דּוֹמֶה, לְשָׁלֹשׁ חֲצֵירוֹת הַפְּתוּחוֹת זוֹ לָזוֹ, וּפְתוּחוֹת לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, מַאי שְׁנָא הָתָם דִּפְלִיגִיתוּ, וּמַאי שְׁנָא הָכָא דְּלָא פְּלִיגִיתוּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **This is what Rabbi Shimon said to the Rabbis: After all, to what is this similar? To three courtyards that open into one another, and that** also **open into a public domain. What is different there that you disagree** with me and say that it is prohibited to carry from any one courtyard to any other, **and what is different here that you do not disagree** with me?


###### Eruvin 48a:22
[Eruvin 48a:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/48a:22)

וְרַבָּנַן: הָתָם אָוְושִׁי דָּיוֹרִין. הָכָא לָא אָוְושִׁי דָּיוֹרִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** how do **the Rabbis** reply? **There** the **residents** of the courtyards **are numerous,** and some might come to carry objects in a place where it is prohibited to do so; whereas **here** the **residents are not numerous,** and a mere three people can warn each other against Shabbat desecration.


###### Eruvin 48a:23
[Eruvin 48a:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/48a:23)

וּשְׁתַּיִם הַחִיצוֹנוֹת כּוּ׳. וְאַמַּאי? כֵּיוָן דְּעָרְבִי לְהוּ חִיצוֹנוֹת בַּהֲדֵי אֶמְצָעִית, הָוְיָא לְהוּ חֲדָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna taught: If the residents of the two outer courtyards established an *eiruv* with the middle one, it is permitted to carry from the middle one to the two outer ones, and it is permitted to carry from the two outer ones to the middle one. **And** it is prohibited to carry from one of **the two outer** courtyards to the other, as they did not establish a joint *eiruv*. The Gemara asks: **Why** is it prohibited? **Since** the residents of the **outer** courtyards **established an *eiruv* with** the **middle one, they are** as **one,** and consequently, they should all be permitted with one another.


###### Eruvin 48a:24
[Eruvin 48a:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/48a:24)

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: כְּגוֹן שֶׁנָּתְנָה אֶמְצָעִית עֵירוּבָהּ בָּזוֹ וְעֵירוּבָהּ בָּזוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yehuda said:** The mishna is referring to a case where the two outer courtyards did not place their *eiruv* in the middle courtyard; rather, to a case **where the** residents of the **middle** courtyard **placed its** first ***eiruv* in this** courtyard **and its** second ***eiruv* in that** courtyard, so that the *eiruv* of each of the other courtyards is not in the middle courtyard.


###### Eruvin 48a:25
[Eruvin 48a:25](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/48a:25)

וְרַב שֵׁשֶׁת אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא שֶׁנָּתְנוּ עֵירוּבָן בָּאֶמְצָעִית, כְּגוֹן שֶׁנְּתָנוּהוּ

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rav Sheshet said: Even if you say that** the residents of each of the outer courtyards **placed their *eiruv* in the middle** courtyard, they are still not considered a single courtyard, as we are dealing **with a case where they placed** each *eiruv*