Eruvin 94

Chapter 94

א שאין מן הכל זוכה אדם ללמוד ואמר ר' יוסי מעשה ביוסף הכהן שהלך אצל רבו לצידן ללמוד תורה

1 no person is so meritorious as to be able to learn from any teacher. And R'Jose related: It once happened that Joseph the Priest went to his Master at Zidon1

ב ואמר ר' יוחנן הלכה כרבי יוסי ולמה לי והא אמרת רבי יהודה ור' יוסי הלכה כר' יוסי

2 to study Torah'; and in connection with this R'Johanan said: 'The halachah is in agreement with R'Jose';2 but what need was there [for this specific statement] seeing that it has already been laid down that 'in a dispute between R'Judah and R'Jose the halachah is in agreement with R'Jose'?3

ג אמר אביי איצטריך סד"א הני מילי במתני' אבל בברייתא אימא לא קמ"ל

3 - Abaye replied: This4 was necessary.

ד אלא הכי קאמר הני כללי לאו ד"ה נינהו דהא רב לית ליה הני כללי:

4 Since it might - have been presumed that [the general rules]5 applied only to a Mishnah but not to a Baraitha hence we were informed [here6

ה אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל חפצי נכרי אין קונין שביתה

5 of R'Johanan's statement].7 [R'Mesharsheya],8

ו למאן אילימא לרבנן פשיטא השתא חפצי הפקר דלית להו בעלים אין קונין שביתה חפצי הנכרי דאית להו בעלים מיבעיא

6 however, meant this: Those rules were not unanimously approved, since Rab9 in fact did not accept them.

ז אלא אליבא דר' יוחנן בן נורי וקמ"ל אימר דאמר ר' יוחנן בן נורי קונין שביתה הני מילי חפצי הפקר דלית להו בעלים אבל חפצי הנכרי דאית להו בעלים לא

7 Rab Judah laid down in the name of Samuel: Objects belonging to a gentile do not acquire their place for the Sabbath.10 In accordance with whose view has this ruling been laid down?

ח מיתיבי ר"ש בן אלעזר אומר השואל כלי מן הנכרי ביום טוב וכן המשאיל לו לנכרי כלי מעיו"ט והחזירו לו ביום טוב והכלים והאוצרות ששבתו בתוך התחום יש להן אלפים אמה לכל רוח ונכרי שהביא לו פירות מחוץ לתחום הרי זה לא יזיזם ממקומן

8 If it be suggested: According to that of the Rabbis [the objection would arise:] Is not this obvious? Since objects of hefker,11

ט אי אמרת בשלמא קסבר רבי יוחנן בן נורי חפצי נכרי קונין שביתה הא מני ר' יוחנן בן נורי היא

9 though they have no owner,12 do not acquire their place for the Sabbath was it necessary to state that the same law applies to a gentile's objects, which have an owner?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Sabbath limit of owned objects being determined by that of their owner, the objects of a gentile, who himself does not acquire his place for the Sabbath, could not obviously acquire any such place for themselves.');">13

י אלא אי אמרת קסבר רבי יוחנן בן נורי חפצי הנכרי אין קונין שביתה הא מני לא ר' יוחנן בן נורי ולא רבנן

10 - The fact is that the ruling14 has been laid down in accordance with the view of R'Johanan B'Nuri, and it is this that we were informed: That R'Johanan B'Nuri's ruling that15

יא לעולם קסבר רבי יוחנן בן נורי חפצי הנכרי קונין שביתה ושמואל דאמר כרבנן ודקאמרת לרבנן פשיטא מהו דתימא גזירה בעלים דנכרי אטו בעלים דישראל קמ"ל

11 objects acquire their place for the Sabbath applied only to objects of hefker, since they have no owner, but not to a gentile's objects which have an owner. An objection was raised: R'Simeon B'Eleazar ruled: If an Israelite borrowed an object from a gentile16

יב ורב חייא בר אבין אמר רבי יוחנן חפצי נכרי קונין שביתה גזירה בעלים דנכרי אטו בעלים דישראל

12 on a festival day, and so also if an Israelite lent an object to a gentile on the eve of a festival17 and the latter returned it to him on the festival, and so also any utensils and stores18

יג הנהו דכרי דאתו למברכתא שרא להו רבא לבני מחוזא למיזבן מינייהו

13 that were kept19 within the Sabbath limit of the town, may be carried within a radius of two thousand cubits in every direction.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But no further. In the case of the object that the gentile returned on the festival, though its Israelite owner has prepared an 'erub which enables him to walk beyond two thousand cubits from the town, he may not carry with him that object beyond a distance of two thousand cubits from the town.');">20

יד א"ל רבינא לרבא מאי דעתיך דאמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל חפצי נכרי אין קונין שביתה

14 If a gentile has brought fruit to an Israelite front a place beyond his Sabbath limit, the latter<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the fruit have acquired their place without the Sabbath limit of the town, and having been carried into the town they are now outside their permitted limit.');">21 may not move them from their position.22

טו והא שמואל ור' יוחנן הלכה כר' יוחנן ואמר רב חייא בר אבין אמר ר' יוחנן חפצי נכרי קונין שביתה גזירה בעלים דנכרי אטו בעלים דישראל

15 Now if you grant that R'Johanan B'Nuri holds that a gentile's objects do acquire their place for the Sabbath, it might well be explained that this ruling23 is in agreement with the view of R'Johanan B'Nuri.

טז הדר אמר רבא ליזדבנו לבני מברכתא דכולה מברכתא לדידהו כד' אמות דמיא

16 If, however, you contend that R'Johanan B'Nuri holds that a gentile's objects do not acquire their place for the Sabbath [the objection would arise:] Whose view does it represent seeing that it is neither that of R'Johanan B'Nuri nor that of the Rabbis?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Consequently it must be conceded that according to R. Johanan b. Nuri a gentile's objects do acquire their place for the Sabbath. How then could it be said supra that Samuel's ruling to the contrary was in agreement with that of R. Johanan b. Nuri?');">24 - R'Johanan B'Nuri may in fact maintain that a gentile's objects do acquire their place for the Sabbath, but Samuel laid down his ruling in agreement with the Rabbis.

יז תני רבי חייא חרם שבין תחומי שבת צריך

17 And as to your objection,25 'According to that of the Rabbis. is not this obvious? ' [it may be replied:] Since might have presumed that a restriction was imposed in the case of a gentile owner as a preventive measure against an infringement of the law in the case of an Israelite owner, hence we were informed [that no such restriction was deemed necessary]. R'Hiyya B'Abin, however, laid down in the name of R'Johanan: The objects of a gentile acquire their place for the Sabbath, a restriction having been imposed upon those of a gentile owner as a preventive measure against the infringement of the law in the case of those of an Israelite owner. Some rams once arrived at Mabrakta26 and Raba permitted the inhabitants of Mahuza27 to purchase them.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And to take their purchases with them to Mahuza though the gentile sellers had brought them from a place beyond them from a place beyond the Sabbath limit of that town. [This occurred on a festival, when it is permissible to obtain on credit purchases of food, v. R. Hananel].');">28 Said Rabina to Raba: What [authority is it that you have in] your mind?29 That of Rab Judah who laid down in the name of Samuel that a gentile's objects do not acquire their place for the Sabbath?30 Surely, in a dispute between Samuel and R'Johanan the halachah is in agreement with R'Johanan, and R'Hiyya B'Abin has laid down in the name of R'Johanan: The objects of a gentile acquire their place for the Sabbath, a restriction having been imposed upon those of a gentile owner as a preventive measure against the infringement of the law in the case of those of an Israelite owner? Raba thereupon ruled: Let them31 be sold to the people of Mabrakta since in their case all Mabrakta is deemed to be only four cubits in extent.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As laid down by R. Gamaliel (Mishnah Supra 41b in the case of a cattle-pen, a cattle-fold or a ship) whose ruling, as Rab testified (supra 42b) , is the accepted halachah and applies also to a town that has walls around it.');">32 R'Hiyya taught: A fish-pond between two Sabbath limits33 requires

Previous Chapter Next Chapter