עָנִי הוּא דַּאֲקִילּוּ רַבָּנַן עִילָּוֵיהּ, אֲבָל עָשִׁיר – לֹא.

Therefore, it is only with regard to a pauper, who does not have food for two meals, that the Sages were lenient and permitted him to establish residence merely by saying: My residence is in my current location. However, with regard to a wealthy person in his own house who has bread, no, they did not permit him to do so.

וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר: עִיקַּר עֵירוּב בָּרֶגֶל, אֶחָד עָנִי וְאֶחָד עָשִׁיר. אֲבָל “בְּמָקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי״ – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל: עָנִי – אִין, עָשִׁיר – לָא.

And Rabbi Yehuda maintains: The primary ordinance of eiruv is by foot, i.e., by going and stating that he is establishing his residence in that location, and therefore it applies to both a pauper and a wealthy person. However, with regard a case when the person said: My residence is in such-and-such place, and he is not there, everyone, both Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda, agrees that for a pauper on the road on a Shabbat eve, yes, an eiruv may be established in that manner; however, for a wealthy person, no, an eiruv may not be established in that manner.

וְזוֹ הִיא שֶׁאָמְרוּ: מַאן קָתָנֵי לָהּ – רַבִּי מֵאִיר, וְאַהַיָּיא קָאֵי – אַ״אֵינוֹ מַכִּיר אוֹ שֶׁאֵינוֹ בָּקִי בַּהֲלָכָה״. וְ״לֹא אָמְרוּ מְעָרְבִין בַּפַּת אֶלָּא לְהָקֵל״ מַאן קָתָנֵי לָהּ – רַבִּי יְהוּדָה.

And as for the mishna’s statement: And this is what the Sages meant when they said that a pauper can establish an eiruv with his feet, who, which Sage, is teaching it? It is Rabbi Meir. And to which clause of the mishna is it referring? It refers to the previous statement: If he is not familiar with a tree or any other noticeable landmark, or if he is not an expert in the halakha , and therefore is unaware that a residence can be established from a distance, and said: My residence is in my current location, he acquires two thousand cubits in each direction. And as for the statement in the continuation of the mishna: The Sages said that one establishes an eiruv with bread only to be lenient with the wealthy person, who, which Sage, is teaching it? It is Rabbi Yehuda, who maintains that the option of establishing an eiruv by foot is available to the wealthy as well.

וְרַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר: מַחֲלוֹקֶת “בְּמָקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי״, דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר סָבַר: עָנִי – אִין, עָשִׁיר – לָא. וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר: אֶחָד עָנִי וְאֶחָד עָשִׁיר. אֲבָל “בִּמְקוֹמִי״ – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל: אֶחָד עָנִי וְאֶחָד עָשִׁיר, דְּעִיקַּר עֵירוּב בָּרֶגֶל.

Rav Ḥisda, however, disagreed with Rav Naḥman and said: The dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda in the mishna is with regard to a person who said: My residence is in such-and-such place, in which case the his residence is neither acquired by foot nor with bread. As Rabbi Meir maintains: A pauper, yes, he establishes residence with an eiruv in that manner; however, a wealthy person, no, he does not. And Rabbi Yehuda maintains: Both a pauper and a wealthy person may establish an eiruv in that manner. However, in a case where one said: My residence is in my present location, everyone, both Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda, agrees that an eiruv of this kind is effective both for a pauper and for a wealthy person, as everyone agrees agree that the primary ordinance of eiruv is by foot.

“וְזוֹ הִיא שֶׁאָמְרוּ״, מַאן קָתָנֵי לָהּ – רַבִּי מֵאִיר, וְאַהַיָּיא קָאֵי – אַהָא: “מִי שֶׁבָּא בַּדֶּרֶךְ וְחָשְׁכָה״. “וְלֹא אָמְרוּ מְעָרְבִין בַּפַּת אֶלָּא לְהָקֵל״ – מַאן קָתָנֵי לָהּ – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל.

And as for the mishna’s statement: And this is what the Sages meant when they said that a pauper can establish an eiruv by foot, who is teaching it? It is Rabbi Meir. And to which clause of the mishna is it referring? It is referring to this clause: One who was coming along the way on Shabbat eve, and it grew dark while he was traveling. According to Rabbi Yehuda, he could have established an eiruv even if he was in his house. And as for the statement in the continuation of the mishna: The Sages said that one establishes an eiruv with bread only in order to be lenient with the wealthy person, who is teaching it? Everyone agrees with this halakha , and it is taught according to both opinions.

תַּנְיָא כְּוָותֵיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן: אֶחָד עָנִי וְאֶחָד עָשִׁיר מְעָרְבִין בַּפַּת. וְלֹא יֵצֵא עָשִׁיר חוּץ לַתְּחוּם וְיֹאמַר “שְׁבִיתָתִי בִּמְקוֹמִי״ – לְפִי שֶׁלֹּא אָמְרוּ מְעָרְבִין בָּרֶגֶל אֶלָּא לְמִי שֶׁבָּא בַּדֶּרֶךְ וְחָשְׁכָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר.

The Gemara comments: A baraita was taught in accordance with the opinion of Rav Naḥman, who said that the dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda is with regard to one who said: My residence is in my present location. It was stated in the baraita : Both a pauper and a wealthy person establish an eiruv with bread; however a wealthy person may not go out beyond the Shabbat limit and say: My residence is in my present location, because the Sages said that one can establish an eiruv by foot only in the case of a person who was coming along the way and it grew dark while he was traveling. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אֶחָד עָנִי וְאֶחָד עָשִׁיר מְעָרְבִין בָּרֶגֶל, וְיֵצֵא עָשִׁיר חוּץ לַתְּחוּם וְיֹאמַר “תְּהֵא שְׁבִיתָתִי בִּמְקוֹמִי״, וְזֶה הוּא עִיקָּרוֹ שֶׁל עֵירוּב. וְהִתִּירוּ חֲכָמִים לְבַעַל הַבַּיִת לִשְׁלֹחַ עֵירוּבוֹ בְּיַד עַבְדּוֹ, בְּיַד בְּנוֹ, בְּיַד שְׁלוּחוֹ בִּשְׁבִיל לְהָקֵל עָלָיו.

Rabbi Yehuda says: Both a pauper and a wealthy person establish an eiruv by foot. And a wealthy person will go out beyond the Shabbat limit and say: My residence is in my present location. And this is the primary ordinance of eiruv . However, the Sages permitted a homeowner to send his eiruv in the hand of his servant, or in the hand of his son, or in the hand of his agent, in order to be lenient with him, so that he need not exert himself and go out and establish an eiruv by foot. baraita presents the dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda as it was delineated by Rav Naḥman.

אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּאַנְשֵׁי בֵית מֶמֶל וּבְאַנְשֵׁי בֵית גּוּרְיוֹן בַּאֲרוֹמָא, שֶׁהָיוּ מְחַלְּקִין גְּרוֹגָרוֹת וְצִימּוּקִין לַעֲנִיִּים בִּשְׁנֵי בַצּוֹרֶת, וּבָאִין עֲנִיֵּי כְּפַר שִׁיחִין וַעֲנִיֵּי כְּפַר חֲנַנְיָה וּמַחְשִׁיכִין עַל הַתְּחוּם, לְמָחֳרַת מַשְׁכִּימִין וּבָאִין.

The baraita continues. Rabbi Yehuda said: There was an incident involving the members of the household of the Memel family and members of the household of Guryon family in the village of Aroma, who were distributing dried figs and raisins to the paupers in years of famine, and the paupers of the village of Siḥin and the paupers of the village of Ḥananya would come to the edge of the Shabbat limit at nightfall, which was also within the Shabbat limit of Aroma, and then go home. The following day they would rise early and go to receive their figs and raisins. Apparently, one can establish an eiruv by foot, if he says: My residence is in my present location.

אָמַר רַב אַשִׁי: מַתְנִיתִין נַמִי דַּיְקָא, דְּקָתָנֵי: מִי שֶׁיָּצָא לֵילֵךְ לָעִיר שֶׁמְּעָרְבִין לָהּ, וְהֶחֱזִירוֹ חֲבֵרוֹ – הוּא מוּתָּר לֵילֵךְ, וְכָל בְּנֵי הָעִיר אֲסוּרִין, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה.

Rav Ashi said: The formulation of the mishna is also precise, in accordance with Rav Naḥman’s explanation, as it teaches: If on a Shabbat eve one set out to go to a city for which an eiruv is established enabling him to go there on Shabbat, and another person caused him to return home, he himself is permitted to go to that city on Shabbat, and for all the other residents of the town it is prohibited to go there. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

וְהָוֵינַן בָּהּ: מַאי שְׁנָא אִיהוּ וּמַאי שְׁנָא אִינְהוּ? וַאֲמַר רַב הוּנָא: הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – כְּגוֹן שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ שְׁנֵי בָתִּים, וּשְׁנֵי תְחוּמֵי שַׁבָּת בֵּינֵיהֶן.

And we discussed this mishna and raised a difficulty: What is different about him and what is different about them? Why is he permitted to proceed to the other town while it is prohibited for the other residents to do so? And Rav Huna said: We are dealing here with a case where he has two houses, one in each city, and there is the distance of two Shabbat limits, four thousand cubits, between them.

אִיהוּ כֵּיוָן דְּנָפְקָא לֵיהּ לְאוֹרְחָא – הֲוָה לֵיהּ עָנִי,

With regard to him, since he set out on his way, his legal status is that of a pauper, as he did not intended to return to his first house, but to continue to his other house. Therefore, he can establish residence at the end of his Shabbat limit by verbal means alone.

וְהָנָךְ עֲשִׁירִים נִינְהוּ. אַלְמָא: כֹּל “בְּמָקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי״ עָנִי – אִין, עָשִׁיר – לָא. שְׁמַע מִינָּהּ.

And the legal status of these other inhabitants of his city, is that of wealthy people, as they are in their houses and have food. Consequently they can only establish residence at the end of their Shabbat limit by depositing food there prior the onset of Shabbat. Apparently, everything stated with regard to one who says: My residence is in such-and-such place; to a pauper, yes, it applies to a wealthy person, no, it does not apply. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from this that this is the case.

מַתְנֵי לֵיהּ רַב חִיָּיא בַּר אַשִׁי לְחִיָּיא בַּר רַב קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב: אֶחָד עָנִי וְאֶחָד עָשִׁיר. אָמַר לֵיהּ רַב: סַיֵּים בָּהּ נַמִי: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה.

Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi was teaching the mishna to Ḥiyya bar Rav before Rav. He stated that this leniency applies both to a pauper and to a wealthy person. Rav said to him: Conclude your statement also: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.

רַבָּה בַּר רַב חָנָן הֲוָה רָגִיל דְּאָתֵי מֵאַרְטִיבְּנָא לְפוּמְבְּדִיתָא,

The Gemara relates: Rabba bar Rav Ḥanan was in the habit of coming from his home in Artibbena to Pumbedita on Shabbat.