Study Eruvin folio 44A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
או אין הלכה כרבן גמליאל. או דילמא, בדלא מלו גברי עסקינן, וקא מבעיא ליה: הלכה כרבי אליעזר, או אין הלכה כרבי אליעזר?
or is the halakha not in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Gamliel? Or perhaps we are dealing with a case where the space between Neḥemya and the Shabbat limit could not be filled with people who had established an eiruv and were permitted to establish a human partition for Neḥemya. In that case, there were enough people to establish partitions from where Neḥemya was standing to within two cubits from the limit, and the dilemma that Rav Ḥisda raised was: Is the halakha in accordance with the opinion of R' Eliezer, who says that someone who went two cubits outside of his Shabbat limit may reenter it, or is the halakha not in accordance with the opinion of R' Eliezer?
פשיטא בדלא מלו גברי עסקינן, דאי סלקא דעתך בדמלו גברי עסקינן, מאי תיבעי ליה? האמר רב: הלכה כרבן גמליאל בדיר וסהר וספינה! אלא ודאי בדלא מלו גברי עסקינן, ודרבי אליעזר קמיבעיא ליה.
The Talmud answers: This is obvious that we are dealing with a case where the space between Neḥemya and the Shabbat limit could not be filled with people, as if it should enter your mind that we are dealing with a case where the space between Neḥemya and the Shabbat limit could be fully filled with people, what is Rav Ḥisda’s dilemma? Didn’t Rav say: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Gamliel with regard to a pen, a stable, and a boat? Rather, we must be dealing with a case where the space between Neḥemya and the Shabbat limit could not be filled with people, and the dilemma that he raised was about the ruling of R' Eliezer.
דיקא נמי, דקאמר ליה ״יכנס״. מאי ״יכנס״ — לאו בלא מחיצה?!
The Talmud comments: This interpretation is also precise and implicit in Rav Naḥman’s answer, for Rav Naḥman said to Rav Ḥisda: Establish a human partition for him, and let him reenter his Shabbat limit. Doesn’t the statement: Let him reenter, mean that he may reenter even without a partition along those two additional two cubits, i.e., that after he passes through the human partitions, he would still need to cross the remaining two cubits on his own without the benefit of a partition?