כְּמַאן – כְּרַב יוֹסֵף, וְאַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר יְהוּדָה.

The Gemara comments: In accordance with whose opinion did Rav Natan bar Oshaya act? Apparently, it was in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yosef that everyone agrees that he must set out on his way, and in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda that he need not declare that he is establishing his residence at the end of his Shabbat limit.

לָא, כְּרַבָּה וְאַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה.

The Gemara rejects this suggestion: No, that is not necessarily so, as it is possible to say that he acted according to the opinion of Rabba, and in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and Rav Yehuda bar Ishtata declared that he establishes his residence at the end of his Shabbat limit.

“ רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: כֹּל שֶׁיָּכוֹל לְעָרֵב כו׳״. הָא תָּנֵינָא חֲדָא זִימְנָא: סָפֵק, רַבִּי מֵאִיר וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמְרִים: הֲרֵי זֶה חַמָּר גַּמָּל!

We learned in the mishna that Rabbi Meir says: Anyone who can establish an eiruv , and negated his residence in his original place, and did not establish an eiruv , is likened to both a donkey driver and a camel driver. The Gemara asks: Didn’t we have already learned it once before in another mishna: In a case of uncertainty, Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda say: This person is likened to both a donkey driver and a camel driver. Here too, it is obvious that the same applies, as that is Rabbi Meir’s opinion with regard to all uncertain cases.

אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: לָא תֵּימָא טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר סָפֵק עֵירֵב סָפֵק לֹא עֵירֵב, הוּא דְּהָוֵי חַמָּר גַּמָּל; אֲבָל וַדַּאי לֹא עֵירֵב – לָא הָוֵי חַמָּר גַּמָּל,

Rav Sheshet said: It is necessary to state this ruling here as well, so that you will not say the reason for Rabbi Meir’s statement only applies in a case where there is uncertainty whether one established an eiruv or did not establish an eiruv , and in that case he is in likened to both a donkey driver and a camel driver. However, in a case where there is certainty that he did not establish an eiruv he is not likened to both a donkey driver and a camel driver, but his Shabbat limit is the same as the rest of the residents of his city.

אֶלָּא: אֲפִילּוּ וַדַּאי לֹא עֵירֵב – הָוֵי חַמָּר גַּמָּל. דְּהָא הָכָא וַדַּאי לֹא עֵירֵב, וְקָא הָוֵי חַמָּר גַּמָּל.

Rather, say that even in a case where there is certainty that he did not establish an eiruv he is sometimes likened to both a donkey driver and a camel driver, as here he certainly did not establish an eiruv , and yet he is likened to both a donkey driver and a camel driver. It was therefore necessary to state that even in that case, where there is no uncertainty whether or not he established the eiruv , but only with regard to the location of his residence, he nonetheless has the status of both a donkey driver and a camel driver.

מתני׳ מִי שֶׁיָּצָא חוּץ לַתְּחוּם – אֲפִילּוּ אַמָּה אַחַת לֹא יִכָּנֵס. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: שְׁתַּיִם – יִכָּנֵס, שָׁלֹשׁ – לֹא יִכָּנֵס.

One who intentionally, not for the purpose of performing a mitzva, went out beyond his Shabbat limit, even if only one cubit, may not reenter. Rabbi Eliezer says: If he went out two cubits he may reenter; however, if he went out three cubits he may not reenter.

גמ׳ אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: רַגְלוֹ אַחַת בְּתוֹךְ הַתְּחוּם וְרַגְלוֹ אַחַת חוּץ לַתְּחוּם – לֹא יִכָּנֵס, דִּכְתִיב: “אִם תָּשִׁיב מִשַּׁבָּת רַגְלֶךָ״, “רַגְלֶךָ״ כְּתִיב.

Rabbi Ḥanina said: If one of his feet was within the Shabbat limit, and his other foot was beyond the Shabbat limit, he may not reenter, as it is written: “If you turn away your feet [ raglekha ] due to Shabbat” (Isaiah 58:13). The word raglekha is written in defective form without the letter yod , and can therefore be read as your foot in the singular, indicating that Shabbat can be desecrated by the reentry of even a single foot.

וְהָתַנְיָא: רַגְלוֹ אַחַת בְּתוֹךְ הַתְּחוּם וְרַגְלוֹ אַחַת חוּץ לַתְּחוּם – יִכָּנֵס! הָא מַנִּי – אֲחֵרִים הִיא. דְּתַנְיָא, אֲחֵרִים אוֹמְרִים: לִמְקוֹם שֶׁרוּבּוֹ הוּא נִזְקָר.

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But wasn’t the opposite taught in a baraita ? If one of his feet was within the Shabbat limit, and his other foot was beyond the Shabbat limit, he may reenter. The Gemara answers: In accordance with whose opinion is this taught? It is in accordance with the opinion of Aḥerim , as it was taught in a baraita : Aḥerim say: He is attributed to the place where the majority of his body lies, and therefore, it is permitted for him to enter, as he stepped out with only one foot.

אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: רַגְלוֹ אַחַת בְּתוֹךְ הַתְּחוּם וְרַגְלוֹ אַחַת חוּץ לַתְּחוּם – יִכָּנֵס, דִּכְתִיב: “אִם תָּשִׁיב מִשַּׁבָּת רַגְלֶךָ״, “רַגְלֶיךָ״ קָרֵינַן.

The Gemara cites a different version of the previous discussion. Some say that Rabbi Ḥanina said: If one of his feet was within the Shabbat limit, and his other foot was beyond the Shabbat limit, he may reenter, as it is written: “If you turn away your feet due to Shabbat” (Isaiah 58:13). We read the word raglekha as your feet, in the plural, indicating that the entry of a single foot is permitted.

וְהָתַנְיָא: לֹא יִכָּנֵס! הוּא דְּאָמַר כַּאֲחֵרִים, דְּתַנְיָא: לִמְקוֹם שֶׁרוּבּוֹ הוּא נִזְקָר.

The Gemara raises a difficulty. But wasn’t the opposite taught in a baraita : He may not reenter? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Ḥanina stated his opinion in accordance with the opinion of Aḥerim , as it was taught in a baraita : He is attributed to the place where the majority of his body is located, and it is therefore permitted to enter, as most of his body remains within the Shabbat limit.

“רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: שְׁתַּיִם – יִכָּנֵס, שָׁלֹשׁ – לֹא יִכָּנֵס״. וְהָתַנְיָא, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: אַחַת – יִכָּנֵס, שְׁתַּיִם – לֹא יִכָּנֵס! לָא קַשְׁיָא; הָא – דַּעֲקַר חֲדָא וְקָם אַתַּרְתֵּי, הָא – דַּעֲקַר תַּרְתֵּי וְקָם אַתְּלָת.

We learned in the mishna that Rabbi Eliezer says: If he went out two cubits he may reenter; however, if he went out three cubits he may not reenter. The Gemara asks: But wasn’t it taught otherwise in a baraita ? Rabbi Eliezer says: If he went out one cubits he may reenter; however, if he went out two cubits he may not reenter. The Gemara answers: That is not a difficulty. This, the mishna, is referring to a case where he moved from the first cubit and is now standing two cubits out, and therefore it is permitted for him to reenter; however that, the baraita , is referring to a case where he moved from the second cubit and is now standing three cubits out. Consequently, it is prohibited for him to reenter.

וְהָתַנְיָא, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: אֲפִילּוּ אַמָּה אַחַת לֹא יִכָּנֵס! כִּי תַּנְיָא הַהִיא – לְמוֹדֵד. דִּתְנַן: וּלְמוֹדֵד שֶׁאָמְרוּ נוֹתְנִין לוֹ אַלְפַּיִם אַמָּה – אֲפִילּוּ סוֹף מִדָּתוֹ כָּלֶה בַּמְּעָרָה.

The Gemara raises another difficulty. But wasn’t it taught in a different baraita that Rabbi Eliezer says: Even if he went one cubit out, he may not enter. The Gemara answers: When that baraita was taught it was with regard to one measuring his limit by counting two thousand steps. As we learned in a mishna: And for one established residence in a particular place, and is now measuring his limit by counting out steps, with regard to whom the Sages said one provides him with two thousand cubits, even if his measurement ended in a cave he may not walk even one cubit beyond his measurement.

מתני׳ מִי שֶׁהֶחְשִׁיךְ חוּץ לַתְּחוּם – אֲפִילּוּ אַמָּה אַחַת לֹא יִכָּנֵס. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: אֲפִילּוּ חֲמֵשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה אַמּוֹת יִכָּנֵס, שֶׁאֵין הַמָּשׁוֹחוֹת מְמַצִּין אֶת הַמִּדּוֹת מִפְּנֵי הַטּוֹעִין.

With regard to one for whom it grew dark while he was traveling outside the Shabbat limit of the town where he was heading, even if he was only one cubit outside the limit he may not enter the town. Rabbi Shimon says: Even if he was fifteen cubits beyond the limit he may enter the town, because the surveyors do not precisely demarcate the measures; rather, they mark the Shabbat limit within the two thousand cubits, due to those who err.

גמ׳ תָּנָּא: מִפְּנֵי טוֹעֵי הַמִּדָּה. הדרן עלך מי שהוציאוהו

With regard to the mishna’s statement: Due to those who err, it is taught in a baraita : Due to those who err in their measurement. In other words, because the surveyors are concerned that they might have erred in their measurements, they are stringent and do not position the mark at the edge of the limit, but move it several cubits within the limit.

מתני׳ כֵּיצַד מְעַבְּרִין אֶת הֶעָרִים? בַּיִת נִכְנָס בַּיִת יוֹצֵא, פָּגוּם נִכְנָס פָּגוּם יוֹצֵא. הָיוּ שָׁם גְּדוּדִיּוֹת גְּבוֹהוֹת עֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים,

How does one extend the boundaries of cities in order to ensure that all its protrusions are included within the borders of the city? a house is recessed and another house protrudes, or a turret [ pagum ] is recessed and another turret protrudes from that line, and similarly, if there were remnants of walls ten handbreadths high,