Yerushalmi Eruvin 4:1 ירושלמי עירובין ד׳:א׳

MISHNAH: If somebody was taken out by Gentiles or an evil spirit¹He was insane and therefore not responsible when he left. He regained his senses outside and now must follow the rules of the Sabbath. he only has four cubits. If they brought him back²The Gentiles who had removed him without his cooperation brought him back without his initiative. it is as if he had not left. If they conducted him to another town or put him into a sheep-pen, or a sheep corral³Cf. Mishnah 2:3. These places are not human dwellings but they are fenced in, which makes them similar to private domains., Rabban Gamliel and Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah say he may walk its entirety; Rebbi Joshua and Rebbi Aqiba say, he only has four cubits. It happened that they came from Brundisium⁴With most Mishnah mss. read פרנדיסין, Brundisium, the usual harbor of departure for a trip from Italy to Palestine. The ship left on the Sabbath. when the ship went out to sea; Rabban Gamliel and Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah walked its entirety⁵While they left the Sabbath domain of Brindisi on the Sabbath, this was a consequence of the Gentile mariner’s action. Since on dry land one permits in such a case to walk the entire town in which they happen to find themselves, they may walk on the ship as their town.; Rebbi Joshua and Rebbi Aqiba did not stir out of their four cubits, for they wanted to be strict with themselves.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody was taken out by Gentiles,” etc. Otherwise²¹Translating G; the text of L makes little sense. what would we say? He should be considered like someone who left with permission²²Since he did not leave intentionally or even accidentally. Either he was taken by force or he left when insane and not obligated to keep any commandment. and he should have 2’000 cubits in every direction. Therefore [it is necessary]²³Added from G. to say that “he only has four cubits.” From where the four cubits? Stay everybody at his spot²⁴Ex. 16:29.. And from where 2’000 cubits? A person should not leave his place on the Seventh Day²⁴Ex. 16:29.. Or switching, as (we have stated) [it was stated so:]²⁵The correct text is that of G in brackets since the quote is a baraita, not a Mishnah as implied by the text of L (in parentheses). Mekhilta dR. Ismael, ed. Horovitz-Rabin p. 262 (Yalqut Shimˋony Qonteros Aḥaron, ed. Ginzberg p. 318, Siddur Rash i #461.) “Issy ben Aqiba says “place, place”²⁶An argument by “equal cut”; the meaning of a word does not change from one use in the Pentateuch to another.. It is said here place, and it is said there, I shall Give you a place²⁷Ex. 21:13. The reference is to the cities of refuge which as levitic cities included a domain extending 2’000 cubits outside the built-up area.. Since the place mentioned there includes 2’000 cubits, so the place mentioned here includes 2’000 cubits.” ²⁸Tosephta 3:11, Babli 48a, Tanḥuma Buber Bemidbar #9 (p. 8, Note 74)“The four cubits which they mentioned are his full length and outstretched arms²⁹When he lies down with arms out-stretched behind his head. These justifications point more to a (Greek) cubit of 63cm than one of 55cm; cf. the Introduction.. Rebbi Jehudah says, he and three cubits³⁰The text of the Tosephta seems to make more sense: “3 cubits for his body and in addition 4 cubits so he can take …”. This reading is required since the bottom of an amphora is at least one cubit in diameter; if he is permitted to move it from above his head to below his feet he already has at least 5 cubits., so he can take an amphora from above his head and put it below his feet.” If he relieves himself, he relieves himself at the side; if he prays, he prays in the diagonal³²The meaning of this sentence is not clear; every explanation must be tentative. Since a person may not stay in two different domains on one Sabbath, and since the person started the Sabbath in his domain, it would be logical to infer that once he leaves this domain he is without a domain and if his 4 cubits intersect with an established Sabbath domain he may walk through the entire domain. But if his 4 feet constitute his new domain then intersection with any other domain is irrelevant for him..

Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi asked, the four cubits which they mentioned: are they a domain or are they not a domain³²The meaning of this sentence is not clear; every explanation must be tentative. Since a person may not stay in two different domains on one Sabbath, and since the person started the Sabbath in his domain, it would be logical to infer that once he leaves this domain he is without a domain and if his 4 cubits intersect with an established Sabbath domain he may walk through the entire domain. But if his 4 feet constitute his new domain then intersection with any other domain is irrelevant for him.? If you say that they are a domain, one does not give him four cubits from two places. If you say that they are not a domain, one gives him four cubits from two places. Rebbi Zeˋira said, the Mishnah says that the four cubits which they mentioned are a domain, as we have stated³³Mishnah 6, referring to people keeping the Sabbath on the road, who never had another Sabbath domain, and for whom there should be no question., “on condition that one not export into the other’s [domain].”

It only said, “if they brought him back.” Therefore, if he returned by himself, he is forbidden³⁴The same inference drawn in the Babli, 41b.. Rebbi Aḥa said, this is Rebbi Neḥemiah’s. As it was stated³⁵In the Babli, 41b/42a, the statement is about produce which was taken outside the Sabbath domain. The text here should not be amended since it is quoted in its original form in Roqeaḥ #184. and is implied by the quote in Tosaphot 42a s.v. מכלל. Since the food was moved illegally from its domain it becomes rabbinically prohibited for use on the Sabbath. The prohibition cannot be biblical since the produce itself was not changed (Maimonides Hilkhot Šabbat 6:24); it has the character of a fine.: “Produce which came into the public domain and returned, if in error it may be eaten, if intentional it may not be eaten. Rebbi Neḥemiah says, whether in error or intentional it may not be eaten unless it was returned in error.” Rebbi Neḥemiah parallels Rebbi Meïr, as it was stated³⁶Cf. Šabbat 3, Note 39, Terumot 2:3 Note 70; Tosephta Šabbat 2:15, Babli Ketubot 34a.: “If somebody tithed or cooked on the Sabbath, if in error it may be eaten, if intentional it may not be eaten, the words of Rebbi Meïr.”

If he acquired a place of Sabbath rest³⁷A person staying on the road during the Sabbath, outside of town. Babli 42a. when Gentiles came and surrounded him with a barrier. Rebbi³⁸Read: “Rav”. Ḥuna said, the barrier is of no use for him³⁹He denies the validity of any barrier made on the Sabbath. but he may walk 2’000 [cubits] and carry within four. Ḥiyya the son of Rav said, he walks and carries within 2’000⁴⁰He accepts the validity of a barrier erected for the Sabbath that it permits carrying. If the barrier had been made before the Sabbath and for human dwelling, the area enclosed by the barrier would be the dwelling and the Sabbath domain would extend outside for 2’000 cubits in every direction. But since the barrier was erected on the Sabbath, the domain where he may carry is extended but not the one where he can go (Rashi, 42a).. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Abuna in the name of Ḥiyya the son of Rav: He walks within 2’000 and carries within 4’000 cubits by throwing⁴¹As long as the object thrown comes to rest within the barrier no Sabbath violation occurred, the restriction to 2’000 cubits being rabbinic in nature.. They wanted to say, their disagreement is following Rebbi Joshua and Rebbi Aqiba; but following Rabban Gamliel and Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah they do not disagree. Even following Rabban Gamliel and Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah they disagree⁴²This sentence is documented in the writings of Spanish/Provençal Medieval authors (Rashba ad 42b col. 261, Ritba p. 74c, Meïri p. 159a), but it was missing in the Yerushalmi text available to Ashkenazi authors who assert that Rav Huna and Ḥiyya bar Rav must follow R. Joshua and R. Aqiba (Tosaphot 42a s.v. נכרים, Or zarua part 2 §144, p. 215b, Rosh Chapter 4 #2).; one who had acquired a place of Sabbath rest is in better shape than one who had not acquired a place of Sabbath rest⁴³There is less reason to be lenient with a person forcibly abducted from his domain than with one who stays in his domain, only that the circumstances changed without his action..

If they deposited him at the door of the sheep-pen⁴⁴This now refers directly to Mishnah 1, about a person abducted by Gentiles on the Sabbath.. In the opinion of Rebbi Joshua and Rebbi Aqiba one gives him two cubits inside and two cubits outside. In the opinion of Rabban Gamliel and Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah one does not allow two cubits inside and two cubits outside, for if you would say that one allows him two cubits inside and two cubits outside then he could carry in the entire sheep-pen⁴⁵Once one agrees that he can enter the sheep-pen, according to Rabban Gamliel he has the entire enclosed area (at least if this area is no more than 5’000 cubits²).. If they deposited him in the middle of the sheep-pen and the sheep-pen was partially inside the Sabbath domain and partially outside the Sabbath domain. Rebbi Aḥa said it from study, Rebbi Jehudah said it from reflection⁴⁶Even though it was stated (Note 43) that the cases cannot be compared, the basic arguments of Rav Huna and Ḥiyya ben Rav can be applied here. Since for Ḥiyya the person may carry into the Sabbath domain, it is as if the Gentiles returned him and it is as if he had not left. For Rav Huna he must stay where he is (Note 33).: This is the disagreement of Rav Ḥuna and of Ḥiyya the son of Rav⁴⁷Since the Mishnah states that they only stayed within their 4 cubits as personal restriction but not because they insisted that this was practice to be followed..

Rebbi Zeˋira, Rav Ḥuna in the name of Rav: Since Rebbi Joshua and Rebbi Aqiba wanted to be strict with themselves, this implies that practice follows Rabban Gamliel and Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah⁴⁷Since the Mishnah states that they only stayed within their 4 cubits as personal restriction but not because they insisted that this was practice to be followed.. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ashi: also for a sheep-pen, or a sheep corral, practice follows Rabban Gamliel and Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah⁴⁸Babli 42b in the name of Rav.. Ḥananiah the son of Rebbi Joshua’s brother says, the entire day they were arguing one with the other until my father’s brother came, decided between then, and instituted that practice follow Rabban Gamliel and Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah for a ship and Rebbi Joshua and Rebbi Aqiba for a sheep-pen, or a sheep corral⁴⁹Babli 43a.. What is the difference between a sheep corral and a ship? The colleagues say, for a ship because its walls are part of itself⁵⁰Since the deck of the ship is enclosed by its railing the passenger does not necessarily notice the ship’s motion; for him nothing changes during the day.; Rebbi Zeˋira said, because one removes it from these four cubits and puts it into those four cubits⁵¹Babli 42b. Since the ship is permanently in motion, if one would define the Sabbath domain by the place on the surface of the earth where the person was at nightfall, he could not move at all, not even 4 cubits, since every moment he is at another place.. What difference results between them? If it was a covered walkway⁵²Greek ἐξέδρα, ή. The exedra has no walls. In analogy one considers a ship without railing, perhaps a raft., according to the colleagues it is permitted, according to Rebbi Zeˋira it is forbidden⁵³One has to switch the statements. Since there is no railing, the argument of the colleagues does not apply; the person is restricted to his 4 cubits. For R. Zeˋira the absence of a railing does not make any difference.. If the sea was calm, according to the colleagues it is forbidden, according to Rebbi Zeˋira it is permitted⁵⁴Greek γαληνός, -ή, -όν “calm” (adj.). Assuming the ship being a sailboat which does not move in the absence of wind, it is difficult to see why walking the entire deck should be forbidden by anybody. It seems unlikely that here also one should switch the statements: for the colleagues there is no reason to forbid; for R. Zeˋira there might be an argument that he expected to be elsewhere on the Sabbath and now he is not there.. Rebbi Zeˋira said, the Mishnah says that the four cubits which they mentioned are not a domain⁵⁵Earlier R. Zeˋira is quoted as stating the opposite (Note 33). But there the statement was about Sabbath domains on the ground, here the reference is to Mishnah 1 and the topic is domains on a ship. This makes good sense; there is no need to emend the text by switching the statements of R. Zeˋira and the colleagues as proposed by S. Liebermann..