Torah Community Connections

Week 14 - Sunday - 27 Feb. 2000

ERUVIN: CHAPTER 4: MISHNA 6

If there were two, a part of this one's amot is within this one's amot, they may bring and eat in the middle, provided that this one does not carry out from his into that of his fellow. If there were three, and the middle one is enclosed between them, he is permitted with them and they are permitted with him, and the two outer ones are prohibited one with the other. Rabbi Shimon says: "To what can this be likened? To three courtyards open to one another and open to the public domain; if the two of them made an eruv with the middle one - it is permitted with them and they are permitted with it, and the two outer ones are prohibited one with the other.

Kehati

If there were two - persons, and a part of this one's amot is within this one's amot - i.e., each one has only four amot, e. g. (according to the opinion of the Sages in the preceding mishnah), the two of them were sleeping by the roadside, and they did not know that night had fallen, and there is a distance of six amot between them then the middle two amot are shared by them, they may bring - their food, and eat in the middle - within the shared two amot, provided that this one does not carry out from his into that of his fellow - neither of them may carry his bread or his objects into the two outer amot, which are his fellow's and not his, for just as he may not walk outside his four amot, he may not carry his objects out to or in from there, as it is taught, "The beast and the utensils are as the feet of the owner" (Betz. 5:3).

If there were three -persons, each one of whom has only four amot, and the middle one is enclosed between them -e.g. there is a distance of eight amot between two of them, and one is in the middle, between them, at a distance of four amot from each one then the middle one shares two amot with each of the other two he - the middle one, is permitted - to use the shared two amot - with - each of - them, and they are permitted - in the shared amot, with him, and the two outer ones are prohibited one with the other - because they have no common area.
Rabbi Shimon says: To what can this be likened? To three courtyards open to one another -the first one is open to the second, and the second one is open to the third, and - each one is - open to the public domain - in such a case, each courtyard is an independent domain, and none has the right of entry to and passage through the other, and the courtyards do, therefore, not cause a prohibition of carrying in one another; if the two of them - the two outer courtyards, made an eruv - eruv hatzerot, with the middle one - the middle courtyard, but the outer courtyards did not make an eruv with each other, it is permitted with them - a person may carry in and out from the middle courtyard to the outer courtyards, and they are permitted with it - a person may carry in and out from the outer courtyards to the inner one, and the two outer ones are prohibited one with the other - a person may not carry from one to the other through the middle courtyard, unless the three of them make one eruv.

A baraita quoted in the Gemara explains that the Sages disagree with Rabbi Shimon and hold that it is forbidden to carry from any one to the other, lest the inhabitants of the outer courtyards come to carry from one to the other. This is why Rabbi Shimon says to the Sages: this case of the three persons, the middle one of whom is enclosed between the other two, is similar to that of the three courtyards open to one another; why do you, in the case of the three persons, permit the middle one with the outer ones, and they are permitted with him, while you disagree with me in the case of the three courtyards? The Sages answered Rabbi Shimon as follows: we enacted the prohibition regarding the three courtyards, lest the inhabitants of the outer courtyards come to carry from one to the other through the middle courtyard, because there are many inhabitants, and not all of them know that they must be careful; the inhabitants of the middle courtyard also will not take care to remind them that this is prohibited, for they will think that one of the inhabitants of their courtyard (the middle one), is the person who is carrying. But in the case of the three persons, the middle one is not to be prohibited on account of the two outer ones, for he will take care to remind them that they may not carry to each other; therefore, he is permitted with them and they are permitted with him.

ERUVIN: CHAPTER 4: MISHNAH 7

If a man was on a journey and darkness overtook him, and he knew of a tree or a fence, and he said, "My Shabbat station is under it" - he said nothing. "My Shabbat station is at its root" - he may walk from the place of his feet to its root 2,000 amot and from its root to his house 2,000 amot. Thus he can walk after nightfall 4,000 amot.

Kehati

If a man was on a journey - on Shabbat eve, i.e., he was returning home from a journey and darkness overtook him - i.e., when nightfall drew near, he was 4,000 amot from his house, and he knew of a tree or a fence - from which he was only 2,000 amot distant, and if he ran as fast as he could he would have reached it before nightfall, but he was tired and walking slowly, or he wanted to rest, and as a result he would only have reached it after nightfall (Gemara), and he said, "My Shabbat station is under it" - under the tree or the fence; and from there I will walk to my house, which is only 2,000 amot from the tree or fence, he said nothing - since he did not specify which four amot under the tree or under the fence he chose for his Shabbat station.

In the Gemara, Rav and Shmuel interpret this phrase in different ways: according to Rav, he said nothing at all. He may not walk even to the place under the tree, and he has only four amot because in his place he has no Shabbat station, for he intended to leave it, and he did not establish his Shabbat station under the tree or under the fence since he failed to specify his resting place, as explained above. According to Shmuel, "he said nothing" to allow him to go to his house, for since his house is 2,000 amot distant from the root of the tree or the base of the fence, he may not walk from there to his house, because he did not specify the place of his Shabbat station, and his four amot may count from the beginning of the branches of the tree, or at the side of the fence, from where the distance to his house is more than 2,000 amot. He may, however, walk to the place under the tree, for this refers to a case in which all the branches of the tree are within the 2,000 amot from his current location. Therefore any area of four amot under the tree is within his Shabbat bounds (see the Gemara and Rashi, 49b). And if he said:"My Shabbat station is at its - the tree's or the fence's, root" - which is a specific place, he may walk from the place of his feet - where he is standing at twilight, to its - the tree's or the fence's, root 2,000 amot - since he specified the place he thus established it as his Shabbat station, and he may walk 2,000 amot to this place, and - he may continue - from its - the tree's or the fence's, root to his house - the distance of - 2,000 amot. Thus he can walk after nightfall 4,000 amot - i.e., a person may during a journey establish his Shabbat station at a place 2,000 amot away by mere declaration and from there he may walk an additional 2,000 amot in any direction he wishes; thus he may, after nightfall, walk a distance of 4,000 amot.

Regarding the first section of the mishnah, the Gemara records Rav Huna's statement: "It was taught (that "he said nothing") only regarding a tree under which there are eight amot, but regarding a tree which has only seven amot under it, then part of his home [i.e., his Shabbat station] is discernible (i.e., within any four amot that he establishes as his Shabbat station, one amah of it is at any rate marked out in the middle amah, he therefore has established his Shabbat station there).

According to most of the commentators (Rashi, R. Yitzhak Alfasi, Hameiri), Rav Huna's statement applies only to the opinion of Rav, for according to the opinion of Shmuel, he did establish his Shabbat station under the tree or under the fence, but he may not reach his house because it is farther than 2,000 amot from the beginning of the branches of the tree or from the beginning of the fence. According to Ramban, however, Shmuel holds that he established his Shabbat station in his place, and he may walk 2,000 amot to the place under the tree. But once there, he may not move from there (this same interpretation is given by Rabbeinu Hananel), for since he did not specify the place of his Shabbat station there, he did not establish his station there at all. According to this interpretation Rav Huna's statement applies also to the opinion of Shmuel (Hil. Eruvin 7:5-7; seeMaggidMishnek, loc. cit.).

Return to Mishna Yomit Index

Visit the Mishna Yomit Archives