Babylonian Talmud

Rodkinson 1918 — source 3, scan section 48

because thou knowest, that where R. Meir differs with R. Jehu- dah the Halakha prevails according to R. Jehudah and besides, thou art of the opinion of R. Hisda, who holds, that they differ only concerning the designation of a certain place for the Sab- bath-rest; but did not R. Na'hman explain to the contrary and have we not a Boraitha in support of R. Na'hman ? Answered Rabba bar R. Hanan, " Henceforth I shall not do this again." Rami bar Hama asked: " It was said, that one who made an Erub by means of his feet, has four ells for himself besides the two thousand allowed him. What is the law concerning one who had sent bread to make the Erub ? Has he the extra four ells or not ? " Said Rabha: "Come and hear: The Mishna states that the Erub was to be made with bread only to make it easier for the wealthy. If we should say, that he has not the four ells, it will not be made easier for the wealthy, but on the contrary stricter?" It will not be stricter ? For he would rather lose the four ells and be enabled to send a messenger in his stead than to go himself. MISHNA: If a man (on the eve of Sabbath) had been despatched by his townsmen to combine by an Erub a town (or village in the vicinity) and was subsequently induced by a neigh- bor to go back (before completing his errand) he is permitted to go to the place in question (nevertheless); all his townsmen, however, are forbidden (to go thither). Such is the dictum of R. Jehudah; but R. Meir said: One who can prepare an Erub and does not prepare it, is (like one driving) an ass and (leading) a camel (at the same time). GEMARA: What difference is there between the man and his townsmen ? Said R. Huna: " This is a case of where a man possessed two houses which had two legal limits between them. TRACT ERUBIN. 117 i.e., they were four thousand ells apart and the man went out on the road without taking bread along. He is then considered as a poor man ; (and in consequence made his Erub wherever he was with his feet) but his townsmen who sent him to make the Erub are regarded as wealthy and their Erub not having been effected are not allowed to go out," We learned a Boraitha supporting this teaching: " One who has two houses between which there are two legal limits makes the Erub valid as soon as he starts out on the way from one to the other, such is the dictum of R, Jehudah. Moreover, said R. Jose the son of R. Jehudah, even if his comrades meet him and tell him to stay over night where he is, because it is too hot or too cold, he may arise in the morning and continue on his way (for his intention was originally to make his Erub at the end of his journey)." Said Rabba: " All agree that a man may continue his journey after remaining at a certain place over night, if he had been persuaded to interrupt his journey by another, but if he did so of his own accord, he must not continue on his way, because he may have changed his original intention. Wherein they differ is, if the man was persuaded to remain at a certain place before commencing his journey. According to one, his Erub is invalid as long as he had not yet started, and according to the other, it is valid because the intention originally existed." R. Joseph, however, said: " All agree that one must start on the journey, otherwise his Erub is not valid; but they differ in a case of a man having been persuaded to stop over at a certain place or doing so of his own accord. One holds, that if he stopped over of his own accord, he may have changed his orig- inal intention and hence his Erub is not valid, while the other maintains, that as long as he had started, it does not matter. R. Jehudah bar Isht'tha brought a basket of fruit to R. Nathan bar Oshiya on the eve of Sabbath (and the distance from his house to that of R. Nathan was four thousand ells). He started to return and R. Nathan let him go as far as the first step and then said to him: " Remain here over night." On the morrow, he arose and returned to his home. " But R. Meir said : ' One who can prepare an Erub,' " etc. Have we not learned already in a Mishna (of the third chapter) that R. Meir and R. Jehudah both said: " If (an Erub) is doubt- ful, this is (Hke driving) an ass (and leading a) camel." Said R. Shesheth: It might be assumed that the reason of R. Meir's ii8 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. opinion is that only in the case of a doubtful Erub, it is a case of an ass and a camel, but if it is known to a certainty that no Erub was made, such is not the case (but it is positively forbid- den) ; hence we are given to understand that even where it is certain that the Erub was not made it is also a case of an ass and a camel ; because the Mishna cites a case where it is certain that no Erub was made. MISHNA: If one went beyond the legal limit even a single ell, he must not go back the entire distance. R. Eliezer said: If he went two ells beyond the limit he may go back ; but if three ells, he must not. GEMARA: Said R. Hanina: " If a man had one foot within the limit and the other foot outside he may enter, because it is written [Isaiah Iviii. 13]: ' If thou restrain thy feet for the sake of the Sabbath ' and we read ' thy feet ' and as one foot was still within the limit, it cannot be said, that he had restrained his feet." We have learned, however, in another Boraitha, that he must not enter ? R. Hanina holds according to the opinion of the anonymous teachers, who maintain in still another Boraitha, that wherever the greater part of the body of a man is situated, there is his place. " R. Eliezer said : ' If he went two ells,' " etc. Did we not learn in a Boraitha, that R. Eliezer said: If he went one ell beyond the limit he may go back; but if he went two ells, he must not ? This presents no difificulty; our Mishna refers to a case where he had overstepped one ell and remained exactly two ells beyond, while the Boraitha refers to one who had over- stepped two ells and was already in the third. Did we not learn in another Boraitha, that R. Eliezer said : " Even if he had stepped out one ell, he must not reenter ? " This Boraitha refers to the one who measured the legal distance (as is stated in the last Mishna of the next chapter, which will be explained then and there). MISHNA: One who was overtaken by dusk one ell outside of the legal limit must not reenter the town ; R. Simeon, how- ever, said: Even if one was fifteen ells beyond the limit, he may go back, as the land-surveyors who establish the limits, are not very exact in their measurements and allowance is made for those who might err. GEMARA: We have learned in a Boraitha: " It sometimes happens that the land-surveyors forget their mark and go