## Eruvin Daf 51a

###### Eruvin 51a:1
[Eruvin 51a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/51a:1)

אָמַר רָבָא: וְהוּא דְּכִי רָהֵיט לְעִיקָּרוֹ מָטֵי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: וְהָא ״חָשְׁכָה לוֹ״ קָתָנֵי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said:** This *halakha* applies **only** in a case **where, were he to run to the trunk** of the tree **he could reach it** before the onset of Shabbat. **Abaye said to him: But doesn’t** the mishna **state: And it grew dark** while **he** was traveling, indicating that he is farther away than that?


###### Eruvin 51a:2
[Eruvin 51a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/51a:2)

״חָשְׁכָה״ — לְבֵיתוֹ, אֲבָל לְעִיקָּרוֹ שֶׁל אִילָן מָצֵי אָזֵיל. אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי אָמַר רָבָא: חָשְׁכָה לוֹ כִּי מְסַגֵּי קַלִּי קַלִּי, אֲבָל רָהֵיט — מָטֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: The mishna means that **it grew dark** while he was traveling so that he can no longer return **to his house** before nightfall; **however, he is able** to **go to the trunk** of the tree before Shabbat. **Some state** a different version of the previous statement. **Rava said:** The mishna means that **it grew dark** while **he** was traveling, so that **were he to walk very slowly** he could not reach his house; **however, if he runs, he can** still **arrive** before Shabbat.


###### Eruvin 51a:3
[Eruvin 51a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/51a:3)

רַבָּה וְרַב יוֹסֵף הֲווֹ קָא אָזְלִי בְּאוֹרְחָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבָּה לְרַב יוֹסֵף: תְּהֵא שְׁבִיתָתֵנוּ תּוּתֵי דִּיקְלָא דְּסָבֵיל אֲחוּהּ. וְאָמְרִי לַהּ: תּוּתֵי דִּיקְלָא דְּפָרֵיק מָרֵיהּ מִכְּרָגָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabba and Rav Yosef were going** together **along the way. Rabba said to Rav Yosef: Our residence will be beneath the palm that carries its brother,** the one with another palm tree leaning on it. **And some say** he said to him: Our residence will be **beneath the palm that spared its owner from the land tax [*karga*],** the palm which yielded enough dates for its owner to pay his entire land tax.


###### Eruvin 51a:4
[Eruvin 51a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/51a:4)

יָדַע לֵיהּ מָר? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא יָדַעְנָא לֵיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: סְמוֹךְ עֲלַי, דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: אִם הָיוּ שְׁנַיִם, אֶחָד מַכִּיר וְאֶחָד שֶׁאֵינוֹ מַכִּיר — זֶה שֶׁאֵינוֹ מַכִּיר מוֹסֵר שְׁבִיתָתוֹ לַמַּכִּיר, זֶה שֶׁמַּכִּיר אוֹמֵר: תְּהֵא ״שְׁבִיתָתֵנוּ בְּמָקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabba asked: **Does the Master know** of that tree? Rav Yosef **said to him:** No, **I do not know** of it. **He said to him:** Then **rely on me, as it was taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Yosei says: If two** people **were** walking together, **one** of whom is **familiar** with a particular location in the distance, **and one** is **not familiar** with it, **the one who** is **not familiar** with it **entrusts** his right to designate **his** residence **to the one who** is **familiar** with it, **and the one who** is **familiar** with it **says: My residence is in such-and-such place.**


###### Eruvin 51a:5
[Eruvin 51a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/51a:5)

וְלָא הִיא, לָא תְּנָא לֵיהּ כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי, אֶלָּא כִּי הֵיכִי דְּלִיקַבֵּל לַהּ מִינֵּיהּ, מִשּׁוּם דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי נִימּוּקוֹ עִמּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **But it is not** so; that is not the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. Rabba **only taught it** as if it is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yosei so that** Rav Yosef **would accept it from him, due to** the fact that **Rabbi Yosei’s reasoning** accompanies **his** rulings, Since the *halakha* is usually in accordance with Rav Yosei’s opinion, Rav Yosef would be less likely to raise doubts with regard to the ruling.


###### Eruvin 51a:6
[Eruvin 51a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/51a:6)

אִם אֵינוֹ מַכִּיר אוֹ שֶׁאֵינוֹ בָּקִי וְכוּ׳.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
We learned in the mishna: **If one is not familiar** with a tree or any other noticeable landmark, **or if he is not an expert** in the *halakha*, unaware that residence can be established from a distance, and he said: My residence is at my current location, his presence at his current location acquires for him the right to walk two thousand cubits in each direction.


###### Eruvin 51a:7
[Eruvin 51a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/51a:7)

הָנֵי אַלְפַּיִם אַמָּה הֵיכָן כְּתִיבָן? דְּתַנְיָא: ״שְׁבוּ אִישׁ תַּחְתָּיו״ — אֵלּוּ אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת. ״אַל יֵצֵא אִישׁ מִמְּקוֹמוֹ״ — אֵלּוּ אַלְפַּיִם אַמָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a fundamental question: **These two thousand cubits, where are** they **written** in the Torah? The Gemara answers that it is **as it was taught** in a *baraita*: **“Remain every man in his place”** (Exodus 16:29); **these are** the **four cubits,** which constitute the minimum Shabbat limit, e.g., for one who ventured beyond his prescribed limit. **“Let no man go out of his place”** (Exodus 16:29); **these are** the **two thousand cubits** of the Shabbat limit for one who remains in his place. Unless otherwise specified, the measure of one’s place is two thousand cubits.


###### Eruvin 51a:8
[Eruvin 51a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/51a:8)

מְנָא לַן? אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: לָמַדְנוּ ׳מָקוֹם׳ מִ׳מָּקוֹם׳, וּ׳מָקוֹם׳ מִ׳נִּיסָה׳, וְ׳נִיסָּה׳ מִ׳נִּיסָה׳, וְ׳נִיסָּה׳ מִ׳גְּבוּל׳, וּ׳גְבוּל׳ מִ׳גְּבוּל׳, וּ׳גְבוּל׳ מִ׳חוּץ׳, וְ׳חוּץ׳ מִ׳חוּץ׳. דִּכְתִיב: ״וּמַדּוֹתֶם מִחוּץ לָעִיר אֶת פְּאַת קֵדְמָה אַלְפַּיִם בָּאַמָּה וְגוֹ׳״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **From where do we** derive that this is the measure of one’s place? **Rav Ḥisda said: We derive** this by means of a verbal analogy between the term **place** written here: “Let no man go out of his place,” and **from** the term **place** written with regard to an unwitting murderer: “Then I will appoint you a place to where he shall flee” (Exodus 21:13). This last verse mentions both place and fleeing, **and** the term **place** is derived **from** the term **fleeing. And** the term **fleeing** is derived **from** the term **fleeing,** written in a different verse with regard to the unwitting murderer: “But if the slayer shall at any time come outside the border of the city of his refuge, whither he has fled” (Numbers 35:26). **And** the term **fleeing** is derived **from** the term **border,** which appears in the same verse. **And** the term **border** is derived **from** the term **border,** as it states there: “And the avenger of blood find him outside [*miḥutz*] the borders of the city of his refuge” (Numbers 35:27). Since this verse mentions both the term border and the term outside, the term **border** is derived **from** the term **outside. And** the term **outside** is derived **from** the term **outside, as it is written** with regard to the Levite cities, which also served as cities of refuge: **“And you shall measure from outside [*miḥutz*] the city on the east side two thousand cubits,** and on the south side two thousand cubits, and on the west side two thousand cubits, and on the north side two thousand cubits” (Numbers 35:5). From this chain of identical terms, the meaning of the term place stated in connection with Shabbat is derived from the two thousand cubits mentioned with regard to the Levite cities.


###### Eruvin 51a:9
[Eruvin 51a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/51a:9)

וְנֵילַף מִ״קִּיר הָעִיר וָחוּצָה אֶלֶף אַמָּה״? דָּנִין ׳חוּץ׳ מִ׳חוּץ׳, וְאֵין דָּנִין ׳חוּץ׳ מֵ׳חוּצָה׳.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But let us derive** instead by means of a verbal analogy between the term outside in the verse: “Outside the borders of the city of refuge,” and the term outside in the verse: **“From the wall of the city outward [*vaḥutza*] a thousand cubits”** (Numbers 35:4), that the Shabbat limit measures only a thousand cubits. The Gemara answers: **One derives** the meaning of the term **outside [*ḥutz*]** by means of a verbal analogy **from** another instance of the term **outside [*ḥutz*], but one does not derive** the meaning of the term **outside from** the term **outward [*ḥutza*].**


###### Eruvin 51a:10
[Eruvin 51a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/51a:10)

וּמַאי נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ? הָא תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: ״וְשָׁב הַכֹּהֵן״ ״וּבָא הַכֹּהֵן״ — זוֹ הִיא שִׁיבָה, זוֹ הִיא בִּיאָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty: **What is** significant about **the difference** between the two terms? **Didn’t the school of Rabbi Yishmael teach** a verbal analogy with regard to leprosy of houses between the verse: **“And the priest shall return [*veshav*]”** (Leviticus 14:39) and the verse: **“And the priest shall come [*uva*]”** (Leviticus 14:44), from which it is derived that **this is** the *halakha* with regard to **returning,** i.e., it is after seven days; **this is** the same *halakha* with regard to **coming;** it is after seven days. Obviously, the less pronounced difference of one letter between *ḥutz* and *ḥutza*, should not prevent the teaching of a verbal analogy.


###### Eruvin 51a:11
[Eruvin 51a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/51a:11)

הָנֵי מִילֵּי הֵיכָא דְּלֵיכָּא מִידֵּי דְּדָמֵי לֵיהּ, אֲבָל הֵיכָא דְּאִיכָּא מִידֵּי דְּדָמֵי לֵיהּ — מִדָּמֵי לֵיהּ יָלְפִינַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Gemara rejects this argument: **This applies** only **when there are no terms** that are **identical to it however, where there are terms** that are **identical to it, we derive** the verbal analogy **from** terms **identical to it,** rather than from the terms that are not precisely identical.


###### Eruvin 51a:12
[Eruvin 51a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/51a:12)

אַלְפַּיִם אַמָּה עֲגוּלּוֹת. וְרַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן אַנְטִיגְנוֹס מָה נַפְשָׁךְ: אִי אִית לֵיהּ גְּזֵירָה שָׁוָה — פֵּיאוֹת כְּתִיבָן, אִי לֵית לֵיהּ גְּזֵירָה שָׁוָה — אַלְפַּיִם אַמָּה מְנָא לֵיהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *tanna’im* of the mishna disagree whether the **two-thousand-cubit** limit granted to a person in every direction is measured as a **circle** or as a square tablet. The Gemara poses a question: With regard to the opinion of **Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigenos** that the limit is measured as a circle, **no matter what** you say, it is difficult. **If he is of the** opinion that there is a **verbal analogy** from the verse written with regard to the Levite cities it is difficult, because **sides** is the term **written,** indicating squared boundaries. And **if he is not of the** opinion that there is a **verbal analogy, from where does he** derive that the Shabbat limit is **two thousand cubits?**


###### Eruvin 51a:13
[Eruvin 51a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/51a:13)

לְעוֹלָם אִית לֵיהּ גְּזֵירָה שָׁוָה, וְשָׁאנֵי הָכָא דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״זֶה יִהְיֶה לָהֶם מִגְרְשֵׁי הֶעָרִים״ — לָזֶה אַתָּה נוֹתֵן פֵּיאוֹת, וְאִי אַתָּה נוֹתֵן פֵּיאוֹת לְשׁוֹבְתֵי שַׁבָּת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Actually, he is of** the opinion that there is **a verbal analogy, but here,** with regard to the Levite cities, it **is different, as the verse says: “This shall be to them the open space of the cities”** (Numbers 35:5), from which it is inferred: **To this,** the open space of the city, **you** should **provide sides** and square it, **but you do not provide sides to those resting on Shabbat.** Instead, those who establish Shabbat residence are provided with a circular, two-thousand-cubit limit.


###### Eruvin 51a:14
[Eruvin 51a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/51a:14)

וְרַבָּנַן? תָּנֵי, רַב חֲנַנְיָה אוֹמֵר: כָּזֶה יְהוּ כׇּל שׁוֹבְתֵי שַׁבָּת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** how do **the Rabbis** understand the emphasis placed on the word this in the verse? The Gemara answers: As **it was taught** in a *baraita* that **Rav Ḥananya says: Like this** measure **shall be** the calculations of measures for **all those who rest on Shabbat,** i.e., square.


###### Eruvin 51a:15
[Eruvin 51a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/51a:15)

אָמַר רַבִּי אַחָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב: הַמַּעֲבִיר אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב עַד שֶׁמַּעֲבִיר הֵן וַאֲלַכְסוֹנָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said: One who carries** an object **four cubits in the public domain is only liable if he carries** it **four** cubits **with their diagonal.** The four cubits mentioned in many places is only the basic measure by which the distance beyond which it is prohibited to carry is calculated. However, in practice, a person is liable only if he carries the object the length of the diagonal of a square with four-cubit sides.


###### Eruvin 51a:16
[Eruvin 51a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/51a:16)

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא בָּדֵיק לַן רָבָא: עַמּוּד בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים גָּבוֹהַּ עֲשָׂרָה וְרוֹחַב אַרְבָּעָה, צָרִיךְ הֵן וַאֲלַכְסוֹנָן אוֹ לָא? וְאָמְרִינַן לֵיהּ: לָאו הַיְינוּ דְּרַב חֲנַנְיָה? דְּתַנְיָא, רַב חֲנַנְיָה אוֹמֵר: כָּזֶה יְהוּ כׇּל שׁוֹבְתֵי שַׁבָּת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa said** that **Rava** once **tested us** by asking: With regard to **a pillar in the public domain, ten** handbreadths **high and four** handbreadths **wide, must** the width **be** four handbreadths **with their diagonal** in order to be regarded a private domain, **or not? And we said to him: Is this not** that which was taught by **Rav Ḥananya? As it was taught** in a *baraita*: **Rav Ḥananya says: Like this** measure **shall be** that of **all those who rest on Shabbat,** indicating that the diagonal is the determining measure for the *halakhot* of rest on Shabbat.


###### Eruvin 51a:17
[Eruvin 51a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/51a:17)

וְזֶה הוּא שֶׁאָמְרוּ הֶעָנִי מְעָרֵב בְּרַגְלָיו. אָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר: אָנוּ אֵין לָנוּ אֶלָּא עָנִי וְכוּ׳.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
We learned in the mishna: **And this is** the meaning of that **which** the Sages **said: A pauper can establish an *eiruv* with his feet,** i.e., one who does not have the bread required to establish an *eiruv* may walk anywhere within his Shabbat limit and acquire residence. **We have** this leniency in effect **only** for **a pauper,** who does not have food for two meals. However, one who has bread may only establish residence with bread. Rabbi Yehuda says: This leniency is in effect for both a pauper and a wealthy person.


###### Eruvin 51a:18
[Eruvin 51a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/51a:18)

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: מַחֲלוֹקֶת ״בִּמְקוֹמִי״, דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר סָבַר: עִיקָּר עֵירוּב בְּפַת,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Naḥman said:** This **dispute** between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda is **with regard to** a case where the person said: My residence is in **my** current **location. As Rabbi Meir maintains: The primary** ordinance and establishment **of *eiruv*** is **with bread.**