Mishnah
1 An alley which is higher than twenty cubits should be reduced. Rabbi Judah says this is unnecessary. If it is wider than ten cubits it should be reduced. if there is a door frame even though it is wider than ten cubits there is no need to reduce it.
Halakhah
“An alley which is higher than twenty,” etc. Rabbi Yose said it without attribution, Rabbi Aḥa in the name of Rav: The rabbis inferred it from the door of the Sanctuary, but Rabbi Judah inferred it from the door of the Hall. An argument from the door of the Hall is sufficient only up to forty cubits, as we have stated there: “The door of the Hall was forty cubits high and twenty cubits wide.” Rabbi Ḥiyya stated, even forty or fifty cubits; Bar Qappara stated, even a hundred cubits. Rabbi Abin said, Rabbi Judah follows his opinion and the rabbis follow their opinion, as we have stated there, “and similarly one carries under paneled bridges on the Sabbath, the words of Rabbi Judah, but the Sages forbid it.” As you are saying there, one considers the cross-beam as if it came down and closed, here also one considers the roof as if it came down and closed. This is the opinion of Rabbi Judah in the case of a sukkah, this is his opinion in the case of an alley. Also the opinion of the rabbis in the case of a sukkah is their opinion in the case of an alley. But the two cases are not equivalent. There are items qualified for a sukkah which are disqualified for an alley and those qualified for an alley but disqualified for a sukkah. Double pointed stakes are qualified for a sukkah but disqualified for an alley, and it was stated: If he brought four double pointed stakes and thatched over them it is qualified as a sukkah but disqualified for an alley. That is, if they are higher by more than three handbreadths than the walls of the alley. But if they are not higher by more than three handbreadths than the walls of the alley it is qualified. If they are not, but they are four handbreadths wide they are qualified even if arbitrarily high. Walls may be qualified for a sukkah but disqualified for an alley, and it was stated: “Two regular and the third even one hand-breadth is qualified.” Rabbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: Two of four handbreadths each and the third even one hand-breadth is qualified. But for an alley only if it is closed in its four directions. Wider than ten cubits is qualified for a sukkah but disqualified for an alley. “If he trained a vine or squash over it.” That means, up to an area of two bet se’ah. But more than an area of two bet se’ah it is a partition made for agriculture where one may transport only four cubits. If its sunlit area is larger than its shaded area it is disqualified as sukkah but qualified for an alley. A roofed sukkah is disqualified, a roofed alley is qualified. Rabbi Immi in the name of Rav Oshaia: Not only roofed, but if he placed a crossbeam there four handbreadths wide, it makes the alley permitted. Rabbi Aḥa, Rabbi Ḥinena in the name of Kahana: Practice does not follow Rabbi Judah. Otherwise, what would we say? Rabbi Judah versus the Sages, practice should follow Rabbi Judah? But since Rabbi Jacob bar Idi said in the name of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi, practice follows the lenient opinion in Eruvin, and Rabbi Naḥman bar Isaac said in the name of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi, practice follows Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri. We asked about it, we would think this refers to an individual versus an individual but not an individual versus the Sages. Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa came and reported, Jacob bar Idi said in the name of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi, practice follows Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri even though the Sages disagree with him. Why should practice not follow Rabbi Judah even though the Sages disagree with him? Samuel said, practice follows the lenient opinion in Eruvin. Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi said to him, for example what we have stated there, “and similarly one carries under paneled bridges on the Sabbath, the words of Rabbi Judah, but the Sages forbid it”? He told him, didn’t I say eruvin? Did I say partitions? Kahana shares Samuel’s opinion. Therefore it was necessary to say that practice does not follow Rabbi Judah. They only said “higher than twenty”. Therefore at the end of twenty it is qualified. This follows Rav who said that the end of measurements is for leniency; Rabbi Yoḥanan said that the end of measurements is for restriction. Rabbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: For an alley whose beam is higher than twenty he puts another beam within twenty and this reduces to less than twenty. Rabbi Yose said, on condition that the entire qualifying beam is within twenty. Rabbi Ḥilqiah said in the name of Rabbi Aḥa, even this comes following Rav, as Rav said that slaughter half by half is qualified, and why did they say that it is disqualified? Because of the visual impression. For if you say that he must put it within twenty, he would put it higher than twenty. “It should be reduced.” How does one reduce it? He makes a platform at the entrance of the alley and permits the alley. How much must it be? Rabbi Aḥa in the name of Rabbi Hoshaia: Four handbreadths for an alley. Rabbi Yose says, one handbreadth corresponding to the beam. The colleagues say, anything, since there is no longer a height of twenty cubits across a width of one handbreadth. If its height was less than ten handbreadths one has to dig out. How much does he have to dig? Rabbi Aḥa said, four cubits as an alley. Rabbi Yose said, four handbreadths as a space. Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rabbi Yose in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan, he makes a ditch at the entrance of the alley, ten handbreadths deep and four wide; this permits the alley from inside and out, provided it is within three handbreadths of the walls of the alley. Even the one who says four there agrees with three here. There it is outside of the alley, but here within the alley. If he made a stone fence at the entrance to the alley, ten handbreadths high and four wide, it permits the alley from inside and out. If there had been a stone fence, if it reduces to ten handbreadths within three it needs a beam, otherwise it does not need a beam. There are Tannaim who state, within four cubits. The one who says, within three cubits, the rabbis. The one who says, within four cubits, Rabbi Meir. If there was a slope in the middle of the alley, for those at the high end it acts as a ditch, for those at the low end as a stone fence. “If it is wider than ten cubits it should be reduced.” How does one reduce it? He puts a cross-beam on the entrance of the alley and permits the alley. This was said for width; the rabbis also apply it to height. Is it not like an opening along its length? It is turned into a porch. Rabbi permitted a porch in Bet Shearim. How many pillars did it have? Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Rabbi Ḥiyya and Rabbi Yose, one said, six, but the other one said, eight. Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, they do not disagree. The one who said six does not count the two outer ones, the one who said eight does count the two outer ones. Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rabbi Eleazar: Six is not important, eight is not important. But if the public used it, it will be forbidden even with two. If the public does not use it, it will be permitted even with many. The case which happened was as it happened. If a porch was totally open to the public domain, Rabbi La: Rav and Rabbi Yoḥanan both are saying, one may carry in its entirety; Samuel said, one may carry in it only four cubits. Rabbi Yose said, does not Samuel agree that an alley roofed higher than twenty cubits is qualified? But Samuel must hold, only if the qualifying beam is within twenty cubits. There came Rabbi Aḥa, Rabbi Ḥinena in the name of Rabbi Hoshaia, only if the qualifying beam is within twenty cubits. Rabbi Yose said, even if Samuel thought that an alley roofed higher than twenty cubits is qualified, an alley is not comparable to a porch. An alley serves the adjacent houses. A porch serves a particular object. If an alley is not roofed but there is a beam within twenty cubits, would it not be qualified? But if a porch is not roofed although there is a beam within twenty cubits, would that mean anything? If it was wide within fifteen cubits, Rabbi Abba and Rav Huna in the name of Rav: He makes a plank of slightly more than three handbreadths and removes it two cubits from the wall. The slight addition is treated as a lath, and it is permitted on condition that the standing portion is greater than the empty space. Should he not make a plank four handbreadths wide? Did we not state, he makes a plank four handbreadths wide? Rabbi Abba bar Pappai said, in order to permit both parts without a beam. Some Tannaim state, he puts up a stick and a double-pointed stake; some Tannaim state, he makes a plank four handbreadths wide. Rabbi Yose said, practice follows the one who said, he makes a plank four handbreadths wide. It was stated: Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, if an alley has two entrances, he puts a beam over one of them and permits it. Rabbi Aḥa in the name of Rabbi Levi: Practice does not follow Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. Rabbi Abba said, only if he put up a stick and a doubly pointed stake; but if he made a plank four hand-breadths wide, practice follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, as it was stated: If an alley has four entrances, he puts a beam over one of them and permits it. Rabbi Yose said, only if he does it for a middle one. But if he put it on an outer one could it be that what is standing here would permit what is open there? What would permit that which is open there? Rabbi Shammai said, explain it as following Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel and you cannot infer anything. A curved and open alley. Rabbi Yoḥanan said, he puts a beam or a lath on one side and makes a door frame on the other side. Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he puts a beam or a lath there which permits. In Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish’s opinion, if they wanted to fix it so that each side may use it up to the closing wall, would not two domains use a common domain? But one may use it up to the bend and the other may use it up to the bend. Would not two domains use a domain forbidden to them? Rav and Samuel, Rav like Rabbi Yoḥanan and Samuel like Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish. Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish were staying in Rabbi Isaac’s street. Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish carried, according to his opinion, Rabbi Yoḥanan did not carry, according to his opinion. Rabbi Yoḥanan neither forbade nor carried; he said, let the residents of the alley act in error, so that they do not act intentionally. What, did he carry or did he not carry? If you say that he carried, then Rabbi Yoḥanan changed his opinion. If you say that he did not carry, it should be forbidden to the dwellers in the alley. Rabbi Yoḥanan annulled his rights. Rabbi Aḥa said, Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish forced Rabbi Yoḥanan and he carried. Rabbi Mattaniah said, this is correct. What is Rabbi Meir’s reason? They considered him as unintentional compared to intentional. What is the rabbis’ opinion? Since they are suspected of carrying they are as if intentional. They told him, if this is so then the haters of Rabbi Yoḥanan should be considered like a Sadducee for the dwellers in the alley and it should become forbidden for the dwellers in the alley. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, a Sadducee is suspected of carrying; here what can you say? What is the difference between them? If it was built like a χ. Rabbi Yoḥanan said, he puts a beam or a lath on one side and makes a door frame on the other side. Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish said, even many beams do not make it permitted. Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: An alley with a breach of four handbreadths at its end, or more than ten cubits at its side. The colleagues in the name of Rav, there is no difference, whether at its end or at a side four handbreadths. They wanted to say, the one who says that “at a side more than ten cubits,” therefore ten are permitted if it is four handbreadths wide. The one who says, “whether at its end or at a side four handbreadths,” if it is not four handbreadths wide. Were we not of the opinion that Rav is like Rabbi Yoḥanan? Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, to unify the entire domain. An alley which was broken at its side toward the entrance, the rabbis of Caesarea said, Rabbi Ḥiyya and Rabbi Yose. If a standing portion four handbreadths wide remained it needs a beam, otherwise it does not need one. What is the difference between this and an alley which has two openings? If an alley has two openings, does he not put a beam over one of them and permit it? Rav Naḥman bar Jacob said, if an alley has two openings, is it not usual that people enter by one and leave by the other? But is it usual that people enter by one and leave by the breach? May one beam permit two alleys? Rabbi Jeremiah said, Rabbi Zeʿira and Rabbi Abbahu, one said, it is forbidden, the other said, it is permitted. The one who said, it is forbidden, if it was put higher than three handbreadths than the walls of the alley; the one who said, it is permitted, if it was put lower than three handbreadths than the walls of the alley. Rabbi Zeʿira said, by what can a courtyard become permitted? It was found stated, with one plank, the words of Rabbi, but the Sages say, with two planks. Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rabbi Ḥiyya, practice follows the one who said, by two planks on condition that there is a plank of four handbreadths on each side. Rabbi Yose in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan, practice follows the one who said, by two planks, but I am saying, by one plank. On condition that there is a plank of four handbreadths on each side? But there are only planks of three handbreadths on each side, and what he said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan, a plank of any thickness on each side. Rabbi Zeʿira, Rav Huna in the name of Rav: An alley whose length and width are equal is not permitted by a lath or beam but by planks like a courtyard. Samuel heard this from him and made the effort to follow him forty times. The rabbis of Caesarea do not say so but rather that Samuel asked Rav, by how much must their length exceed their width? He responded and told him, anything. For this he made the effort to follow him forty times, for someone might need Rav and not find him. There we have stated: “Because an alley relates to courtyards as a courtyard relates to houses.” How many courtyards must there be for an alley? Rav and Samuel both are saying, there cannot be less than two. Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan, even one courtyard on each side. Rabbi Aha, Rabbi Ḥinena in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan said, even a courtyard on one side and a house on the other side, a house on one side and a store on the other side. Rav Naḥman bar Jacob asked: An alley cannot have less than two courtyards, a courtyard cannot have less than two houses. An alley whose length and width are equal is not permitted by a lath or beam but by planks like a courtyard. Samuel asked Rav, by how much must its length exceed its width? He told him, anything. The dwellers of the Land of Israel make theirs square. If five alleys open into one alley. Whether what is standing is more than what is breached or what is breached is more than what is standing, it does not need a beam, if they are distant four cubits. Rabbi Hoshaia stated: Doors which open on the public road, if they are open their place becomes public domain, if they are locked their place becomes private domain. Alleys that open on the sea are like alleys open to an agricultural area. The street of Rabbi Ḥanin does not need a door frame since it descends ten handbreadths within three cubits. They made an arrangement to allow the lower-lying houses. “If there is a door frame even though it is wider than ten cubits there is no need to reduce.” Ḥananiah bar Shelemia was sitting stating this to Ḥiyya, Rav’s son. Rav put his head out of the window and said, it is not so. He told him, but was it not stated so? He said to him, if you teach him this, you must tell him that it is not so. Abba bar Huna said, the door frame about which they spoke is a stick on each side and bast over them. Rabbi Yannai the son of Rabbi Ishmael in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish: A hinge and its fastener. Only the door itself should be missing. Rabbi Ḥiyya stated: How does one permit public domain? Rabbi Judah says, a lath on each side or a beam on each side, but the Sages say, a lath and a beam on one side and he makes a door frame on the other side. Rabbi Jeremiah in the name of Rabbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: A hinge and its fastener. Only the door itself should be missing. Rabbi Jeremiah said this before Rabbi Zeʿira, who told him, what do you have in your hand? Rabbi Ila in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan, the door frame about which they spoke is a stick on each side and bast over them. Rabbi Yose said, the rabbis here follow their opinion and the rabbis there follow their opinion. Since the rabbis there are saying, the door frame about which they spoke is a stick on each side and bast over them; they are those who say, it is not so. But the rabbis here who are saying, a hinge and its fastener, with only the door itself missing, they are those who say, it is so. Ḥanania the son of Rabbi Joshua’s brother says, the House of Shammai say, a door on each side. When he enters he closes and locks. But the House of Hillel say, a door on one side and a door frame on the other side. Samuel said, practice follows Ḥanania the son of Rabbi Joshua’s brother. Is that not the same as the earlier statement? Rabbi Abba said, if there is a door it can be locked. Rabbi Aḥa instructed one who made a door frame that he had to make it within four cubits. Rabbi Aybun instructed in this sense. Rabbi Zeʿira in the name of Rav Ḥisda: If pegs stick out from the walls of an alley, a person places a beam on them and allows the alley, on condition that they are within three handbreadths of the alley. Two Amoraim, one said, only if they are strong enough to carry the beam and its tiles, but the other said, even if they are not strong enough to carry the beam and its tiles. Rabbi Zeʿira asked: under the beam it is forbidden but it permits the alley? Rabbi Aḥa ben Rabbi Ulla said, why did one not say to him, did we not find this for Samuel? As Samuel said, under the beam it is forbidden but it permits the alley. Rabbi Zeʿira in the name of Samuel: Under the beam and between the laths it is judged like a threshold. Rabbi Zeʿira asked, what kind of threshold? Like a permitted threshold or a forbidden threshold? Rabbi Zeʿira said, when I was still there I was uncertain about it, but when I came here I heard Rabbi Yasa in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: If a threshold is ten handbreadths high but less than four wide it is permitted for both domains; only one should not exchange. Rabbi Mana said before Rabbi Yose, look what he is saying! He only said, if it is less than four wide. But if it is four wide it is forbidden. He said to him, is that not the case of a cross-beam? Is it not permitted under a cross-beam? Rabbi Zeʿira said, Samuel and Rabbi Yoḥanan. Samuel said, under the beam it is forbidden, but Rabbi Yoḥanan said, it is permitted. Everybody agrees that between laths it is forbidden, and it was stated: If an alley is made of laths, if between one and the next are four handbreadths one carries up to the outer one; otherwise one carries up to the inner one. The Rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rabbi Uqba, unless the outer one is wider. But if the outer one was wider one carries up to the outer one.
Mishnah
2 The requirements for permitting an alley: the House of Shammai say by lath and beam; but the House of Hillel say, either by lath or by beam; Rabbi Eliezer says, two laths. A student said before Rabbi Akiva in the name of Rabbi Ishmael that the Houses of Shammai and Hillel did not disagree about an alley which is less than four cubits wide that it is permitted either by lath or by beam; about what did they disagree? About one wider than four cubits up to ten where the House of Shammai say by lath and beam; but the House of Hillel say, either by lath or by beam. Rabbi Akiva said, they disagree in both cases.
Halakhah
“The requirements for permitting an alley,” etc. What laths? Two laths and beam following the House of Shammai? Laths but no beam following the House of Hillel? Three handbreadths wide following Rabbi Yose? Arbitrarily small following the rabbis? Let us hear from the following: “It happened that Rabbi Eliezer went to his student Rabbi Yose ben Perora at Oblin. He showed him an alley where there was only one lath. He told him, make it two laths. He said to him, what? Are you telling me to close it off? He told him, let it be closed; there is an argument for the domains of the Sabbath in this respect?” This implies three following Rabbi Yose. If you say it can be arbitrarily small, following the rabbis, would something arbitrarily small close it off? It was stated, practice follows the student, for if it were not so, would we say following the House of Shammai? Could practice follow the House of Shammai rather than the House of Hillel? But since it was stated, “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, an alley which is not four handbreadths deep does not need a beam.” The words of the Sages? Rav Huna in the name of Rav: An alley which is less than four cubits does not need anything.
Mishnah
3 The beam about which they spoke must be wide enough to carry a tile which is half a brick of three handbreadths. Therefore it is sufficient for a beam to be one handbreadth wide to accept the tile lengthwise.
Halakhah
“The beam about which they spoke,” etc. Rabbi Abba said, to accommodate a row of tiles lengthwise. It was stated: Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, to accommodate a row of tiles crosswise. What is the difference between them? Rabbi Ashian said, they differ about strength. In the opinion of the rabbis, forty tiles. In the opinion of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, twenty tiles. Two beams, on each one half of a handbreadth; how much can be between them? Rabbi Zeʿira said, half a handbreadth. What is the difference between half a handbreadth on either side and half a handbreadth in the middle? Rabbi Hoshaia stated, a handbreadth. Two beams, on each a little more than a third of a handbreadth and between them less than a third of a handbreadth. This parallels what Rabbi Yoḥanan said, what is standing and empty space combine for four handbreadths, on condition that the standing portion is greater than the empty space. If a beam protrudes from one wall but does not touch the second wall, or there were two opposite ones, if the gap between one and the other is three handbreadths it needs another beam, otherwise it does not need another beam. There are Tannaim who state, four. The one who says three requires room for a person to pass through. The one who says four requires a distinct space. If one of the ends of a beam is higher than twenty cubits and the other lower than twenty cubits, one checks whether, if one cut within three handbreadths it would appear lower than twenty cubits. If so, it is permitted. Otherwise, it is forbidden. If one of the ends of a beam is lower than ten handbreadths and the other higher than ten handbreadths, one checks whether, if one cut within three handbreadths it would appear lower than ten handbreadths. If so, it is permitted. Otherwise, it is forbidden. If two beams are one on top of the other. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Judah says, one looks at the lower one as if it were higher or the higher one as if it were lower, on condition that the upper one is not higher than twenty cubits and the lower is not lower than ten handbreadths. It was found stated that Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Judah follows his father’s argument and disagrees with him. He follows his father’s argument since he says, one looks at the lower one as if it were higher or the higher one as if it were lower. He disagrees with him since he says, on condition that the upper one is not higher than twenty cubits and the lower is not lower than ten handbreadths. If you say that he follows his father’s opinion it could be arbitrarily high. Rabbi Yose, Ḥinena bar Shelemiah, Rabbi Yudan; Ḥinena bar Shelemiah in the name of Rav: Only if the upper one is within three handbreadths of the lower one.
Mishnah
4 Wide enough to carry a tile and strong enough to carry a tile. Rabbi Judah says, wide enough even if not strong enough.
Halakhah
“Wide enough to carry a tile,” etc. It was stated: Rabbi Simeon says, strong even if it is not wide. Rav Huna in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rabbi Meir. Samuel said, practice follows Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said, practice follows Rabbi Simeon. Rabbi Simeon bar Carsana said, since you are saying that practice follows this one and that one, one may follow this one or that one without worry. Rabbi Mana said, since it was said that practice follows the rabbis, one sets aside the individual opinions and follows the rabbis. Rav went to a certain place; he saw a certain alley, he understood that the beam was rotten, he hit it with a stick and knocked it down. Rav Huna said to him, the date palm stands. Rav told him, the eyes of Rav Huna are high, the eyes of Rav are not high; but I am forbidding it for them because of a beam and the next Sabbath I am permitting it to them because of a lath, so that they know that if the palm tree were removed they would be forbidden to carry. Some want to say, so that they do not follow Rabbi Judah, as Rabbi Judah said, “wide enough even if not strong enough.” Rabbi Ḥinena did not say so but: Rav went to a certain place; he saw a certain alley whose beam had been removed, and forbade it. Rav Huna said to him, the date palm stands. Rav told him, the eyes of Rav Huna are high, the eyes of Rav are not high; but I am forbidding it for them because of a beam, and the next Sabbath I am permitting it to them because of a lath, so that they know that if the palm tree were removed they would be forbidden to carry. Some want to say, so that they do not follow Rabbi Judah, as we have stated there, “what is a corral? Anything close to a village, the words of Rabbi Judah.” And here he says so? Rabbi Mana said, Rabbi Judah treated it as a house.
Mishnah
5 If it was made of straw or reeds, one considers it as if it were metal, curved as if it were straight; round one considers it as if it were square. If its circumference is three handbreadths its width is one handbreadth.
Halakhah
“If it was made of straw or reeds,” etc. Whose position requires this statement? For Rabbi Judah, as Rabbi Judah said, “wide enough even if not strong enough.” “Curved one considers it as if it were straight.” Rabbi Aḥa in the name of Rabbi Zeʿira: This is Rabbi Judah’s. Rabbi Yose in the name of Rabbi Zeʿira: It is everybody’s opinion, but only if the curvature is at the side, a curvature which does not obstruct the alley. But a curvature which impedes the alley makes it forbidden. What is a curvature which obstructs the alley? Any which if you cut it out there is less than three handbreadths between the pieces. “Round, one considers it as if it were square.” Again this is Rabbi Judah’s. They inferred it from the sea. He made the sea cast, ten cubits. It is impossible to say “circular” since it was already said “square.” It is impossible to say “square” since it was already said “circular.” If you said circular, it would turn out to contain 160 times the measure of purity. If you said square, it would turn out to contain 122 times the measure of purity. Therefore you have to say that the upper two cubits were circular, the lower three cubits were square and it turns out that it contained 150 times the measure of purity. One verse says, it contained 2,000 bat, but another verse says, it contained a volume of 3,000 bat. It is impossible to say 2,000 since it already says 3,000 and it is impossible to say 3,000 since it already says 2,000. Therefore you have 2,000 in fluid measure which are 3,000 in dry measure. From here the Sages learned that 40 seah in fluid measure are two kor in dry measure.
Mishnah
6 The laths they spoke about must be ten handbreadths high, but their width and thickness can be arbitrarily small. Rabbi Yose said, their width three handbreadths.
Halakhah
“The laths about which they spoke,” etc. The Mishnah applies when they are separated from the wall. But if they were leaning against the wall even Rabbi Yose will agree. And it was stated: If one made laths for an alley, if they are less than three handbreadths from the ground or they were within three handbreadths from the wall, it is permitted. Three only if the standing portion is greater than the empty space. Building stones which protrude from the building, if between one and the other is less than three handbreadths they are considered as laths. Corners sticking out at each side are considered as laths. A wall which is indented and looks like a plank from inside but even on the outside or looks like a plank from outside but even on the inside is considered as laths. If it was extended, Abba bar Rav Huna said, one looks at it as if indented. Rav Ḥisdai objected, did we not state, “if a large courtyard collapsed into a small one, the large one is permitted but the small one forbidden.” Should not the walls of the large one be like laths for the walls of the small one and the small one be permitted? Abba bar Rav Huna told him, explain it as a case where they were extended more than ten. Rabbi Ashian stated before Rabbi Aḥa, if the large one is eleven but the small one ten. The baraita was searched for but not found. Rabbi Aḥa told him, so says Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish: One does not use as support any Mishnah which is not accepted by a group. Rabbi Yose said, it follows the one who said, a courtyard becomes permitted by two planks on condition that there is a plank of four handbreadths on each side. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Bun said, even you have to say that it follows the one who said, a courtyard becomes permitted by two planks on condition that there is a plank of four handbreadths on either side. Rav Uqba in the name of the rabbis there: They are considered only for the large one but are not considered for the small one. If a wall on one side is extended and on the other side is shortened. Kahana said, he puts the beam obliquely and uses it obliquely. Rabbi Aḥa in the name of Kahana: he puts the beam diagonally and uses it diagonally, but only on condition that the beam does not extend more than ten? Rabbi Yose said, Rav Eudaimon the emigrant confirmed it, on condition that the beam does not extend more than ten. Rabbi Aḥa in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish: On condition that the wall does not extend more than four cubits? Rabbi Yose, Rabbi Ila, Rabbi Aḥa in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish: On condition that the wall does not extend more than four cubits. You conclude that what was problematic for the one was obvious for the other and what was problematic for the other was obvious for the one. Rabbi Ulla said, the Mishnah is from three to four handbreadths. Less than three even more than ten cubits is permitted, four even less than ten cubits is prohibited. What case are we discussing? From three to four.
Mishnah
7 One may use anything for laths, even living things. Rabbi Meir forbids this. And it makes impure as a grave’s cover stone, but Rabbi Meir declares it pure. One writes on it divorce documents but Rabbi Yose the Galilean disqualifies.
Halakhah
“One may use anything for laths,” etc. It was stated: Anything alive one makes into a sidewall but one does not make it into a lath, the words of Rabbi Meir, but the Sages say, one does not make it into a sidewall but makes it into a lath. Rabbi Aḥa said, there is one Tanna; for the one who says that one makes it into a sidewall one makes it into a lath, and for the one who says that one does not make it into a sidewall one does not make it into a lath. Rabbi Yose said, there are two Tannaim. Why could one make it into a sidewall? For if it slipped away, would he not notice? Why does one not make it into a lath? For if it slipped away, would he notice? Rabbi Joshua the Southerner was standing with students of Rabbi Aḥa. He said to them, it is said at the end what disagrees with your teacher: But the Sages say, one does not make it into a sidewall but makes it into a lath. Since in a situation where he would not notice if it slipped away you are saying that it is permitted, here where he would notice if it slipped away is it not all the more so? Therefore there must be two Tannaim according to Rabbi Aḥa. Since you are saying that there are two Tannaim according to Rabbi Yose, so you also have to say here, there are two Tannaim according to Rabbi Aḥa. Rabbi Simeon bar Carsana in the name of Rabbi Aḥa: Rabbi Meir, and Rabbi Yose, and Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah, all three said the same. Rabbi Meir of the laths, “it makes impure because of a cover stone, but Rabbi Meir declares it pure.” Rabbi Yose of Ahilut, “Rabbi Yose said, the house on a ship does not transmit impurity.” Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah, as it was stated: It happened that Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah and Rabbi Akiva came in a ship, and Rabbi Akiva made himself a sukkah on the ship’s deck. A wind came and blew it away. Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah said to him, Akiva, where is your sukkah? What is Rabbi Yose the Galilean’s reason? Scroll. Since a scroll is special in not being a living being, so no living being may be used. Since a scroll is special in not being food, so no food may be used. What is the rabbis’ reason? Scroll. Since a scroll is detached, so anything detached may be used. Are stalks of food in Rabbi Yose the Galilean’s opinion like food? Let us hear from the following: If he wrote it on a deer’s antlers, shaved it off, had it signed, and gave it to her, it is valid. Because he shaved it off before he had it signed. Therefore, not if he had it signed and afterward shaved it off. Rabbi Aḥa in the name of Rabbi Miasha: Only if he wrote on the male horn. But if he wrote on the sheath it is as if separated and is valid. Rabbi Jonah asked: Is that the same for preparation of produce? If he desired that it should rain on an animal and the rain dripped from the animal onto food. There, Rabbi Yose said scroll, since a scroll is special in not being a living being, so no living being; and here, does he say so? There is a difference since it is written, any drinkable liquid in any vessel will be impure. Then also if it rained into cisterns, ditches and caves? There is a difference here, for it is written: a vessel.
Mishnah
8 If a caravan rested in an area of difficult access which they surrounded by the implements of animals one may move things inside on condition that the fence is ten handbreadths high and the openings do not exceed the built-up part. Any opening up to ten cubits is permitted since it is like a door. More than that is forbidden.
Halakhah
“If a caravan rested in an area of difficult access,” etc. Rabbi Aḥa in the name of Rav Ḥisda: Whose position requires this statement? For Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Judah, since Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Judah says, any partition which is not weft and warp is no partition, the words of Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Judah. But he agrees here, and it was stated: One makes a partition with everything, even camel saddles, even tubs, even camels, on condition that between two saddles there is no space for a saddle, between two tubs there is no space for a tub, between two camels there is no space for a camel, and on condition that no standing wall is opposite a standing wall and no breach is opposite a breach, but a standing wall opposite a breach and a breach opposite a standing wall. It turns out that concerning kilaim everything less than three handbreadths is considered closed. From three to four, if what is standing is more than what is torn down it is permitted, but if what is torn down is more than what is standing, it is forbidden. From four handbreadths to ten cubits, if what is standing is more than what is torn down, it is permitted; but if what is torn down is more than what is standing it is permitted where it is standing, forbidden where it is torn down. Concerning the Sabbath, everything less than three handbreadths is considered closed. From three to four, and from four handbreadths to ten cubits, it is permitted if what is standing is more than what is torn down, but forbidden if what is torn down is more than what is standing. More than ten, it is forbidden even though what is standing is more than what is torn down. Rabbi Ḥananiah, Rabbi Judah bar Pazi, in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: There is no “from three to four.” There is a hole of three and no place of four! Rabbi Mana objected: Did we not state: “One surrounds with sticks,” does a stick form a place? He said to him, do not object to me from a breach less than three handbreadths, since anything less than three is considered closed! Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun in the name of Rav: In any case, since what is standing is more than what is torn down, it is permitted.
Mishnah
9 One may surround by three ropes, one higher than the other, on condition that the distance between one rope and the next is less than three handbreadths and the space occupied by their combined thickness is more than a handbreadth so that together it is more than ten handbreadths.
Halakhah
“One may surround by three ropes,” etc. Rabbi Zeʿira said, they said this only about ten or more than ten; therefore no less than ten. But was it stated thus? If one brought a wall of seven handbreadths and raised it less than three from the ground, is it permitted? There you are saying, everything less than three handbreadths is considered closed, and here you should be saying, everything less than three handbreadths is considered closed. If you want to object, object to the following: If one brought a wall of slightly more than four handbreadths and raised it less than two handbreadths from the ground, should it come following what Rabbi Yoḥanan said, what is standing and empty space combine for four handbreadths, on condition that the standing portion is greater than the empty space. Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rabbi Judah ben Ḥaninah: If one put in four poles at the four corners of a vineyard and connected them with a bast string on top, this saves as a symbolic fence. Rabbi Yoḥanan said, the rules of separation walls for the Sabbath are the rules for kilaim. Rabbi Yoḥanan said, it happened that Rabbi Joshua ben Qorḥah went to Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri at Nagnigar; he showed him a field called bet ḥaverata whose wall had parts torn down more than ten cubits wide. He took wood to insert, forked poles to insert, until he reduced to less than ten. He said, just like that is a dividing wall for the Sabbath. Rabbi Zeʿira said, Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish agrees that on the Sabbath, a symbolic fence does not save more than ten. Rabbi Ḥaggai said, the Mishnah says so: “One may surround by three ropes one higher than the other.” If you say that the string saves, one rope would be sufficient. Rabbi Jonah said: Rabbi Hoshaia asked, what do you say about that symbolic fence, on top or at the sides? If you say on top, all the more so on the sides. If you say on the sides, then not on the top. If you say on the top, Rabbi Ḥaggai said it correctly. If you say from the sides, Rabbi Ḥaggai did not say anything. What do you want to say, if on top, it must be on top. Or from the sides, it is on the sides. The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rabbi Jeremiah: Explain it as a case where they were strung on forked poles. Rabbi Zeʿira, Rabbi Eudaimon of Haifa, in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish: In height even one hundred cubits. Rabbi Judan said, that is, for kilaim, but as for the Sabbath, a symbolic fence should not be better than a beam. Rabbi Yose said in the name of Rabbi, it is the same for kilaim and Sabbath. According to Rabbi Yose, what is the difference between a beam and a symbolic fence? A beam saves in one direction; a symbolic fence does not save from one side unless it is used to close all four sides. This follows what Rabbi Zeʿira said in the name of Rav Hamnuna: A symbolic fence does not save unless it seals all four sides. Rabbi Abba bar Mamal said, it is forbidden to carry under the four-gated bowers in vineyards since they form the end of the roof and the end of a roof cannot save as a symbolic fence. Rabbi Phinehas said, a case came before Rabbi Jeremiah of four pillars and on them four beams; he permitted carrying under them because of a symbolic fence. Rabbi Abun and Rabbi Abun asked before Rabbi Zeʿira, does a symbolic fence save in a sukkah? He said to them, a symbolic fence saves in a sukkah. Does the end of the roofing save in a sukkah? He said to them, the end of the roofing does not save in a sukkah. What is the difference between them? One is made for the purpose, the other one is not made for the purpose. Rabbi Abbahu said, all these things are for discussion’s sake, but as far as teaching, it is forbidden to teach it. If this is forbidden for the minor commandment of sukkah, all the more so for the strict commandment of Sabbath! Rabbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rabbi Zeʿira: Is not the Tanna, according to whom a symbolic fence saves, Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri? He said to him, that is the Tanna.
Mishnah
10 One surrounds with sticks, on condition that between one stick and the next there is less than three handbreadths. They spoke about a caravan, the words of Rabbi Judah, but the Sages say that the Sages mentioned a caravan only as an example. Any partition which is not weft and warp is no partition, the words of Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Judah; but the Sages say, one of these two. They exempted a military camp from four requirements: One may bring wood from anywhere, and they are not liable for washing their hands, and from demay, and from making an eruv.
Halakhah
“One surrounds with sticks, on condition,” etc. One surrounds with sticks for a caravan, the words of Rabbi Judah. This implies that an individual needs weft and warp. So Rabbi Judah differentiates between an individual and a caravan; do the rabbis not differentiate between an individual and a caravan? Let us hear from the following: “If a caravan rested on a hill ten handbreadths high, or in a depression ten handbreadths deep, or in a garden fenced in by a stone wall, one carries in it even if it is a kor or two kor, one carries in it up to two bet se’ah, on condition that they do not leave an area of two bet se’ah unoccupied.” Rabbi Aḥa in the name of Rabbi Ḥinena: even with camel saddles, even with tubs. Rav Huna’s statement implies, only by humans. For Rabbi Abba said in the name of Rav Huna, to one or two one gives two bet se’ah, to three one gives six bet se’ah, from then on, in proportion. A caravan consists of at least three people. The Gentile does not count toward a caravan. Does a minor count toward a caravan? How is this? If there were two and they established one eruv, and a Gentile came and added; the Sabbath had already begun with carrying prohibited. If there were three but they established two eruvim and a Gentile came and opened; the Sabbath had already begun with carrying permitted. Rabbi Redifa said that Rabbi Nisa asked, may they have three ox heads so that each of them may enter the two se’ah of another? Rabbi Aḥa in the name of Rav Ḥasdai: Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Judah follows the argument of his father and disagrees with his father. The argument of his father, about an individual more than two bet se’ah. And disagrees with his father, about a caravan less than two bet se’ah. Did we not hear that Rabbi Judah said, an individual for more than two bet se’ah needs weft and warp? Let us hear from the following, that Rabbi Aḥa the Tanna, Rabbi Ḥanin, Rabbi Yose in the name of Rav Sheshet: Just as they differ here so they differ about kilaim. And in Kilaim not even if it is a bet rova? How many form a camp? Rabbi Ḥananiah said, one hundred. Gideon came with the hundred men who were with him to the border of the camp. Rabbi Abuna asked, if it had said, “the camp of a hundred men who were with him” it would be acceptable. Rabbi Yoḥanan said, ten: David’s servants came and spoke to Nabal, etc. What does it mean by and they rested? Rabbi Justus bar Shune said, they made a camp. Rabbi Judah ben Pazi said, ten: Until the camp was large like God’s camp. How many are “God’s camp”? Ten. It was stated in the name of Rabbi Judah: 12,000 who are marching off as camp of Israel in a discretionary war are permitted to rob green wood but are forbidden to rob dry wood. Those who march out in a obligatory war are permitted to rob both dry and green wood. Rabbi Daniel the son of Rav Qatina in the name of Rav Huna: If they were made into bundles it is forbidden. So far if it was not close to a forest; even if it was close to a forest. So far if it was not close to a spring; even if it was close to a spring. If they brought it with them to a town, they already are exempt from liability. What they took out with them from a town already is liable for demay. Rabbi Yose in the name of Rabbi Abbahu, Rabbi Ḥizqiah said in the name of Rabbi Judah ben Pazi: Demay was put in order or not in order. “And from making an eruv.” Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi said, this refers to eruv of courtyards. But eruv of ranges is a matter of biblical law. Are there courtyards in a camp? To disassemble tents in a camp, as it was stated: “Tents in a camp need an eruv, tents of a caravan do not need an eruv. Judah ben Tema says, also they may camp anywhere and at the place where they are killed they are buried, so that you do not say that they should be treated like war dead.” There are Tannaim who state that it is forbidden to remove them; there are Tannaim who state that it is permitted to remove them. The one who said that it is permitted to remove them, if they are together; the one who said that it is forbidden to remove them, if they are dispersed. Just as they are exempt from four matters when they are marching out, so they are exempt from four matters when they are returning. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun understood this from the following: Anybody who is fearful and anxious should return and sneak away from Mount Gilead. Why did they have to return sneaking? Because of the enemies. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun in the name of Rav: Just as they are exempt from four matters when they are marching out, so they are exempt from four matters when they are returning.
Mishnah
1 One makes planks for wells, four double columns which look like eight, the words of Rabbi Jehudah. Rabbi Meïr says eight which look like twelve, eight double columns and four simple ones, their height ten hand-breadths, and their width six, and their thickness arbitrary. And between them the width of two teams of three cattle each, the words of Rabbi Meïr; Rabbi Jehudah says of four each, tied together rather than loose, one entering and one leaving.
Halakhah
“One makes planks for wells,” etc. Since what is breached is more than what is standing he makes double columns but not simple ones, which proves by itself that it is because of access to the well. Rabbi Zeˋira in the name of Rabbi Eleazar: You are reaching here what are the limits of domains of the Sabbath, for if he did so at one place and then threw there four cubits in the public domain he would be liable. Rabbi Yose said, since you were lenient with him about what is breached may be more than what is standing, you are strict with him in another matter since everywhere else one makes a plank of four hand- breadths but here he makes a plank of six hand-breadths. Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: They permitted planks for wells only for pilgrims. Rav Abin said, at the time of pilgrimage. Rabbi Jeremiah in the name of Rabbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: Because of the pilgrims. Rabbi Ezra said before Rabbi Mana, the Mishnah implies that one makes planks for wells in the present time. But did we not state, “one fills from the cistern of the diaspora with a wheel on the Sabbath, from the large cistern, etc.” Why “may one fill from the cold well with a wheel on the holiday”? But at the time when Israel came from the diaspora and camped at this well, the prophets among them stipulated that that one could fill from the cold well with a wheel on the holiday. They did not permit all cold wells, only this well at which they camped. As you are saying there, what was permitted was permitted, and here what was permitted was permitted. Rabbi Eudaimon from Haifa instructed in Haifa, Rabbi Jeremiah instructed in Ḥelef about planks for wells in the present time. They wanted to say that Rabbi Meïr would admit to Rabbi Jehudah, Rabbi Jehudah will not admit to Rabbi Meïr. Rabbi Meïr will admit to Rabbi Jehudah? Does not Rabbi Meïr have simple poles, and you are saying so? If you are making double columns but no straight poles, he would think, perhaps a partition for the Sabbath is made in this way; he would make it in other places and become liable. Rabbi Aḥa in the name of Rabbi Ḥinena: Neither of them yields to the other. Rabbi Mana said, even though Rabbi Yose about did not say this, he said something similar. Rabbi Bun and Rabbi Bun asked before Rabbi Zeˋira: How far away does a double column have to be so it would not need a straight plank? He told him, less than three hand-breadths is considered closed, more than six is far away. Therefore we have to consider from three to four. If you would say that Rabbi Meïr yields to Rabbi Jehudah, should he not make a double column far away and not need a simple plank? Rabbi Abba bar Mamal said, Rabbi Meïr requires simple planks only according to Rabbi Jehudah’s method. Rabbi Yose said, even according to his own method, since in any case what is standing is not more than what is breached. Since what is standing should be more than what is breached it needs a simple plank. “If one big stone was there one sees that if it is split and there be six hand-breadths in both directions it is considered a double column.” Some Tannaim state, if it is hollowed out. They wanted to say that he who says, if it is hollowed out, measures from the inside while he who says, if it is split, measures from the outside. Rabbi Yose said, would you not let it stand if it was like garlic skin? This implies that both he who says that it is split as also he who says it is hollowed out measures from the inside. He who says, if it is hollowed out, if it is round; he who says, if it is split, if it is square. You should know that it is so since one Tanna said to the other, the only difference between my formulation and yours is that you are speaking of a round one but I about a square one. If there was a ditch ten hand-breadths deep and four wide, and it extends six in each direction, it is judged to be a double column. Not only a ditch but also a heap. Partially a ditch and partially a heap? If there were five sticks with less than three hand-breadths between them which together cover six hand-breadths in each direction, they are judged to be a double column. If there were three and he tied bast on top, would this save as symbolic fence? Does not a symbolic fence save only if it is proven from each side? Then what was tied around is as if blocked. Similar to what you are saying there, one sees that if it is split and there would be six hand-breadths in both directions it is considered a double column, could you say the same here? There would you not let it stand if it was like garlic skin; here what can you say? If you would say so you would abrogate the rules of symbolic fences. A wall, and a tree, and a copse of reeds are counted as double columns. If they grew by themselves one may carry there up to an area of two bet se’ah. If he planted them with his hands one may carry there even one or two bet kor. If there was one large well and he made the double columns for one half but not for the other half. For the half for which he made it it is permitted, for the half for which he did not make it it is forbidden. If there were two, could the space in-between be considered for both sides? What is his problem? If both were used to fill; but if only one was used to fill it is usable for both sides. From a courtyard open to planks one carries from the courtyard to the planks but not from the planks to the courtyard. Therefore two are forbidden. Rabbi Abba said, not only two courtyards but even a single courtyard and in it two houses. They thought to say if they did not make an eruv; therefore if they made an eruv it would be permitted. Rabbi Daniel the son of Rav Qatina in the name of Rav Ḥuna: even if they made an eruv it is forbidden, for the eruv does not make them one. Rav Ḥuna follows his opinion, as they disagreed: An alley in which on one side dwelt a Gentile and on the other a Jew, Rav Ḥuna in the name of Rav: even if they made an eruv through doors the Gentile prohibits it for them. Abba bar bar Ḥana in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan, even if they made the eruv through windows the Gentile does not prohibit for them. Even if Rav Ḥuna would hold with Rabbi Joḥanan that there it is permitted, here he has to agree that it is forbidden. There, maybe tomorrow the well will run dry and then he would think that perhaps an eruv is efficient for the planks of wells when an eruv is not efficient for the planks of wells. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, they permitted the planks of wells only to draw water. If water came on the Sabbath, the Sabbath already came with prohibition. If the well dried out, the Sabbath already came with permission. Rabbi Jonah said that Rabbi Nasa asked, may one carry between the planks? We should say that if there are four hand-breadths between one and the other it is like a prohibited threshold, otherwise like a permitted threshold, permitted for both domains; only one should not exchange. It was stated, there are about ten cubits, the words of Rabbi Meïr; Rabbi Jehudah says, like thirteen or fourteen minus: a cubit, a half, and one cubit interspace.
Mishnah
2 It is permitted to make them close to the well on condition that the head and most of the cow be inside when she drinks. It is permitted to put them arbitrarily far away on condition to add planks.
Halakhah
“It is permitted to make them close to the well,” etc. Rabbi Jeremiah in the name of Rabbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac: This is its measure. With this measure even though the camel is entirely outside it is permitted. Less than this measure even if the kid goat is entirely inside it is forbidden. It was stated: Rabbi Simeon ben Eleazar said, enough for a camel and its camel driver. Does he disagree? In every case where the cow stretches its neck, the camel bends its neck. Why do you want this? Could not the cow stand in the public domain and eat in a private domain? Rabbi Yose said, there it is about one who provides for it, but here if it eats by itself. In Rabbi Meïr’s opinion, double columns and single ones; in Rabbi Jehudah’s opinion double columns but no single ones.
Mishnah
3 Rabbi Jehudah says, up to two bet se’ah. They said to him, two bet se’ah were said only for a garden patch and a corral. But if there was a sheep-pen, or a sheep corral, or a backyard, or a front yard, even five bet kor, even ten bet kor are permitted and it is permitted to put them arbitrarily far away on condition to add planks.
Halakhah
According to Rabbi Jehudah, is the well included in the measure of two bet se’ah? Let us hear from the following: If a well is two bet se’ah one may not go farther away than for the head and most of the body of a cow. This implies that the well is included in the measure of two bet se’ah.
Mishnah
4 If a public road interrupts them he should divert it around it, but the Sages say that this is unnecessary. One makes planks both for a public cistern, a public well, and a private well, but for a private cistern one makes a partition of ten hand-breadths, the words of Rabbi Aqiba. Rabbi Jehudah ben Bava said, one makes planks only for a public well; for everything else one makes a belt ten hand-breadths high.
Halakhah
Paragraph. “Rabbi Jehudah says, up to two bet se’ah,” etc. Rabbi Joḥanan said, the argument of Rabbi Jehudah is inverted, as we have stated there: “And similarly one carries under panelled bridges on the Sabbath, the words of Rabbi Jehudah, but the Sages forbid it”. Rabbi Eleazar said, it is not inverted. Rabbi Jeremiah said, for he is of Rav Jehudah’s opinion, as Rav Jehudah said, that is if it is open to a domain of difficult access. But if it was open to the public domain it is forbidden. Rabbi Yose said, everywhere Rabbi Eleazar seeks support from the Elder Rabbi Ḥiyya. Rabbi Ḥiyya stated, how does one permit public domain? Rabbi Jehudah says, a lath on each side or a beam at each side but the Sages say a lath and a beam on one side and he shall make a door frame on the other side. And here he says so? Here about ten cubits, there about thirteen. The words of the rabbis disagree. Rabbi Aḥa said, Rav Hoshaia asked my father, how large can the breach of an alley be in the opinion of Rabbi Jehudah? And he told him, thirteen cubits. And here he says so? The Rabbis of Caesarea say, there what is standing is more than what is breached but here what is breached is more than what is standing. Paragraph. “Rabbi Jehudah says, if a public road interrupts them,” etc. What is the difference between a public cistern and a private cistern? A public cistern has publicity, a private cistern has no publicity. Then even for his well! But a public well can be expected to run dry, a private well is not expected to run dry. Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Amram, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: Practice follows Rabbi Jehudah ben Bava. Rabbi Jehudah the father of Rabbi Mattaniah said, the Mishnah says so, “one makes planks for wells,” not for cisterns. But did we not state, “but for a private cistern one makes a partition of ten hand-breadths, the words of Rabbi Aqiba”? But therefore we must deal with public cisterns, and similarly “one makes planks for wells,” for public wells.
Mishnah
5 In addition, Rabbi Jehudah ben Bava said, if a garden patch or a corral are seventy cubits and a remainder by seventy cubits and a remainder surrounded by a wall ten hand-breadths high one carries inside on condition that it contain a watchman’s hut or a dwelling or be close to a village
Halakhah
Paragraph. “In addition, Rabbi Jehudah ben Bava said,” etc. Rabbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rabbi Jonathan, they inferred it from the courtyard of the Tabernacle: the length of the courtyard 100 cubits wide 50 by 50. 50 times 100 are 5’000. 70 by 70 are 5’000 minus 100, and we have stated “seventy cubits and a remainder.” And Samuel stated, they stated cubits and two thirds of a cubit. Seventy times two thirds and seventy times two thirds make 140 thirds each; 140 thirds and 140 thirds are 93⅓. There is missing from there 4/9 for the corner, there remain nineteen thirds minus one ninth. As we have stated, there is a slight difference which the Sages could not compute. In a corral which covers two bet se’ah one is permitted only to carry a distance of four cubits. If there were two, each one a bet se’ah minus four cubits; Rabbi Zeˋira in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: one carries in the second as complement of the first. Rabbi La in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan, one may not carry in the second as complement of the first. Rabbi Zeˋira said, Rabbi La agrees that if there were three. Each of the three a bet se’ah, one agrees that one carries in the second as complement of the first. A corral which covers up to two bet se’ah. Rabbi Abbahu said, since it can be permitted by a caravan, if somebody threw from the public domain into it he is liable. Rabbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac asked, not after it was permitted the caravan it becomes forbidden in a prohibition; therefore here is no liability for a purification sacrifice. By the same argument, an alley whose beam is higher than twenty cubits since it is qualified in the opinion of Rabbi Jehudah more than thirteen, if somebody threw from the public domain into it would he be liable? An alley which was breached more than ten cubits, since a breach of an alley in the opinion of Rabbi Jehudah is more than thirteen, if somebody threw from the public domain into it would he be liable? If a courtyard is open into a corral one may carry from the courtyard to the corral but not from the corral to the courtyard. Rabbi Judah from Anthodriya asked, may one carry from one corral to another corral through the courtyard? The opinion of Rabbi Jehudah seems inverted, as we have stated there, “what is a corral? Anything close to a village, the words of Rabbi Jehudah.” And here he says so? Rabbi Mana said, Rabbi Jehudah treated it as a house.
Mishnah
6 Rabbi Jehudah says, even if it only contains a cistern, or an irrigation ditch, or a cave, one carries in it. Rabbi Aqiba says, even if none of these is there one carries in it on condition that it be seventy cubits and a remainder by seventy cubits and a remainder.
Halakhah
The opinion of Rabbi Jehudah seems inverted, as we have stated there, “what is a corral? Anything close to a village, the words of Rabbi Jehudah.” And here he says so? Rabbi Mana said, Rabbi Jehudah treated it as a house.
Mishnah
7 Rabbi Eliezer says, if its length exceeds its width even by one cubit one may not carry there. Rabbi Yose says, even if its length is twice its width one carries in there.
Halakhah
Paragraph. “Rabbi Jehudah says, even if it only contains a cistern,” etc. It was stated, “Rabbi Eliezer says, if its length exceeds its width even by one cubit one may not carry there.” This disagrees with R. Jonathan. “Rabbi Yose says, even if its length is twice its width one carries in there,” this agrees with Rabbi Jonathan. We also have stated, “Kilaim in a quarter. Rabbi Yose says, even if its length is twice its width.”
Mishnah
8 Rabbi Illai said, I heard from Rabbi Eliezer: Even if it is a bet kor, and I also heard from him that if one of the dwellers in a courtyard had forgotten to make an eruv he is forbidden to bring into or bring out of his house but to others it is permitted. I also heard from him that one may satisfy one’s obligation on Passover with white stone-crop. I asked around among all his students to find support but did not find any.
Halakhah
Paragraph. “Rabbi Illai said, I heard from Rabbi Eliezer:” Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Eleazar, this Mishnah is about two bet seah collected from the bet kor. “And also I heard from him that if one of the dwellers in a courtyard had forgotten to make an eruv he is forbidden to bring into his house.” There it follows the rabbis, here Rabbi Eliezer. The rabbis say, a person may annul his right to his house but not his right to his courtyard. Rabbi Eliezer says, just as a person may annul his right to his house so he may annul his right to his courtyard. According to Rabbi Eliezer, could he not be treated like a guest and be permitted? Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Ada in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish: Rabbi Eliezer fined him. Rabbi Shammai asked, according to Rabbi Eliezer, does one fine anybody in error about a matter of their words? Rabbi Abba the son of Rav Pappai asked, if somebody said, I am annulling the right to my house, would the rabbis agree? If somebody said, I am annulling the right to my courtyard, would Rabbi Eliezer agree? “Also I heard from him that one may satisfy one’s obligation on Passover with white stone-crop.” They were of the opinion to say, about white stone-crop. It was found stated, about all of them.
Mishnah
1 With anything one may make an eruv or participate except with water or salt. Anything may be bought with money of Second Tithe except water and salt. One who vows not to eat food is permitted water and salt. One may make an eruv for a nazir with wine and for an Israel with heave. Symmachos says, also with profane food for a Cohen in a bet happeras. Rabbi Jehudah says among the graves since he could be shielded and eat.
Halakhah
“With anything one may make an eruv or participate,” etc. Rabbi Aḥa said, this is Rabbi Eliezer’s, as we have stated there, “with anything one may make an eruv or participate except with water or salt, the words of Rabbi Eliezer.” Rabbi Yose said, it is everybody’s opinion. One makes an eruv for courtyards and participates both for courtyards and for domains. Our Mishnah is Rabbi Meïr’s, as it was stated: one may make an eruv with anything eaten raw as is; with bread, one does not make an eruv with it. Garlic and onions, in the opinion of Rabbi Meïr one does not make an eruv with them, as it was stated: Rabbi Jehudah said, it happened that Rabbi Meïr spent a Sabbath at Ardaksam; there came a person who said, I made an eruv with onions and Rabbi Meïr restricted him to his four cubits. Even though Rabbi Meïr said, with everything one may make an eruv or participate except with water or salt, on condition that it be something eaten raw as is. Arum and colocasia: in the rabbis’ opinion one does not make an eruv with. We have stated two principles which are not comparable one with the other. “With anything one may make an eruv or participate except with water or salt,” whether it is something eaten raw as is or something which is not eaten raw. “Anything may be bought with money of Second Tithe except water and salt,” but only something eaten raw as is. “With anything one may make an eruv or participate except with water or salt,” both according to Rabbi Aqiba and Rabbi Ismael. “Anything may be bought with money of Second Tithe except water and salt,” according to Rabbi Aqiba. But according to Rabbi Ismael? Rabbi Ismael stated: Spend the money on anything you want, this is a general clause. For cattle and sheep, wine and intoxicating drink, this is detail. And anything you want, another general clause. General, detail, and general, you may judge only in light of the detail. Just as the detail is explained as born from what is born from the earth, so only what is born from what is born from the earth. Rabbi Aqiba explains: Just as the detail is explained as fruit, born from a fruit, or what prepares fruit, so only what is fruit, born from a fruit, or what prepares fruit. What is the difference between them? Fish, locusts, truffles, and mushrooms which may be bought with tithe money following Rabbi Aqiba, following Rabbi Ismael they may not be bought. “With anything one may make an eruv or participate except with water or salt.” Rabbi Yasa said, because the body is not fed by them. Rabbi Levi said, because they are agents of curse. Rabbi Eleazar said, if he made them into brine it may be bought with Tithe money. Rabbi Aḥa in the name of Rabbi Miasha: only if he mixed oil into it. Rabbi Yose asked, then should he be able to use it for eruv only in proportion? There we had stated: “Half a log of oil. Rabbi Aqiba said, a quarter.” Rabbi Eleazar said, and so it is for an eruv. That is for wine, but not for oil, for which one makes an eruv with food for two meals. It was stated: One makes an eruv with vinegar as food for two meals. Rabbi Jeremiah in the name of Rabbi Samuel ben Rabbi Issac, enough to dip bundles of vegetable as food for two meals. Rabbi Isaac of Atosha said before R. Zeˋira in the name of the House of Rabbi Yannai: one may make an eruv with raw peas. For whom is this necessary? For Rabbi Meïr, lest you say, because they generate bad mouth odor one may not use them for eruv. One may make an eruv with salted fish. One may make an eruv with salted meat. One may make an eruv with raw meat. There, we have stated: “The Babylonians eat it raw because their taste is refined.” Rabbi Yudan asked, may one use χαλκίς for eruv since the Samaritans eat it raw? Samuel bar Shilat in the name of Rav: One may use for eruv paˋapuˋin, gudganiot, and ḥaluglugot. They asked him, what are these? He said to them, καυκαλίς, melilot, and purslain. Paragraph. “One who vows not to eat food is permitted water and salt.” There, we have stated: “One who made a vow to abstain from cooked food is permitted roasted and scalded food.” A Mishnah states that scalding is called cooking, as we have stated: “If he cooked the well-being offering or scalded it.” A verse states that “roasted” is called “cooked” as it is said: They cooked the Pesaḥ in fire. If you say, against the rules, Rabbi Jonah from Bostra said, as is the rule. A Mishnah states that scalded is called cooked, and a verse that roasted is called cooked; but did we not state: “One who makes a vow to abstain from cooked food is permitted roasted and scalded food”? Rabbi Joḥanan said, in matters of vows one follows common usage. Rabbi Joshia said, in matters of vows one follows biblical usage. What is the difference between them? If one said, a qonam that I shall not taste wine on Tabernacles. In the opinion of Rabbi Joḥanan he is forbidden on the last day of the holiday. In the opinion of Rabbi Joshia, is he permitted? Also Rabbi Joshia agrees that he is prohibited. Rabbi Joshia said it only for restrictions. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, Rabbi Joḥanan ate bake-meats and said, I did not taste food on that day. But did we not state: “He who made a vow not to eat food is permitted water and salt”? Explain it following Rabbi Joshia, who said, in matters of vows one follows biblical usage. And from where that everything is called food? Rabbi Aḥa bar Ulla said: And ten female donkeys carrying grain, bread, and food. Why does the verse say, and food? From here that everything is called food. If he forbade himself a loaf by a vow it may be used as eruv, if he dedicated it it may not be used as eruv. If he forbade himself a loaf by a vow it may be used as eruv, since another person may eat it. If he dedicated it it may not be used as eruv, since neither he nor another person may eat it. Rabbi Aḥa asked, may not a person ask about his dedication? Rabbi Aḥa said that Rabbi Miasha asked: There Rabbi Simeon said that Ḥiyya the son of Rav said, if one used idolatry to make a lath it permits the alley, and here you are saying so? Rabbi Eleazar said, there in any case the alley was closed; here what do you have? “One may make an eruv for a nazir with wine” for another person may drink it. “And for an Israel with heave,” for a Cohen may eat it. For a Cohen in a bet happeras? The Mishnah follows the House of Shammai, for the House of Shammai say that one may not make an eruv for a person unless his personal vessels may be there. Symmachos follows the House of Shammai as we have stated: “Symmachos says, also with profane food for a Cohen in a bet happeras.” Then also between the graves? He might transgress a rabbinic prohibition and eat there. For he could enter on a bench, in a box or a chest, make a hole less than a hand-breadth wide, stick a spindle or a splinter into it, and eat it.
Mishnah
2 One may make an eruv with demay, and with First Tithe from which heave has been taken, and Second Tithe or dedicated food which was redeemed; Cohanim with ḥallah and with heave. But not with ṭevel, nor with First Tithe from which heave was not taken, and Second Tithe or dedicated food which was not redeemed. If somebody sends his eruv through a deaf-and-dumb or insane person, or a minor, or by somebody who does not accept eruvin, it is not an eruv. If he told a third person to receive it from him it is an eruv.
Halakhah
Paragraph. “One may make an eruv with demay, and with First Tithe.” Rabbi Jacob the Southerner asked, is our Mishnah not following the House of Shammai? As we have stated, “of demay, the House of Shammai declare invalid but the House of Hillel declare valid. Of Second Tithe in Jerusalem one should not take but if he took it is valid.” Rav Sheshet in the name of the Elder Rabbi Ḥiyya: It is permitted to move ṭevel which has a condition on it. How does he do it? He puts his eyes on a small part and eats the remainder. And it was stated: The House of Shammai say, one does not use Second Tithe as eruv in Jerusalem. Rabbi Jeremiah said, this you are saying about eruv of courtyards. But for an eruv of domains, a villager who deposits his eruv at Jerusalem can go there and eat it. Samuel said, if he is nine or ten years old his eruv is an eruv. Rabbi Yose said, this you are saying about eruv of domains. But for an eruv of courtyards, even if he is small. Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said, why does one make eruv of courtyards? Because of peaceful relations. It happened that a woman was hostile to another and sent her her eruv through her son. She took him, embraced him, and kissed him. He went and told it before his mother. She said, obviously she loves me and I did not know it. As a consequence they made peace. That is what is written, its ways are ways of pleasantness and all its paths peace. Paragraph. “If somebody sends his eruv through a deaf-and-dumb or insane person, or a minor,” etc. Rabbi Eleazar said, he has to be with him. There Rabbi Yose said in the name of Rabbi Sheshet, Rabbi Eleazar the son of Rabbi Yose in the name of Rabbi Abun: If somebody says to another I shall tithe for you, he does not have to be with him. And here, you say so? Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, here about an adult, there about a minor. Rabbi Aḥa said in the name of Rabbi Ḥinena, you may even say in both cases we deal with an adult or in both cases we deal with a minor. There, when he says, I shall tithe for you, he does not have to be with him. But here, he says make an eruv for me! This learns from that and that learns from this. This learns from that, if he says I shall tithe for you, he does not have to be with him. That learns from this, if he says make an eruv for me, he has to be with him.
Mishnah
3 If he deposited it in a tree higher than ten hand-breadths it is not an eruv; below ten hand-breadths it is an eruv. If he put it in a cistern even 100 cubits deep it is an eruv. If he put it on top of a stick or a pole as long as it was uprooted and inserted it is an eruv even if 100 cubits high. If he put it into a tower it is an eruv even if the key was lost. Rabbi Eliezer said, if it is not known that the key is in its place it is no eruv.
Halakhah
Paragraph. “If he deposited it in a tree more than ten hand-breadths high,” etc. It is an eruv but it is forbidden to move it; below three it is permitted. This is difficult. If his eruv is a valid eruv one should be permitted to move it. If one is forbidden to move it his eruv should not be a valid eruv. He might transgress the rabbinic prohibition and eat. Then also higher than ten hand-breadths? Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel, explain it if its stem was four hand-breadths. Rabbi Mana said, only if the public domain surrounds it on all sides; he says my Sabbath rest shall be below it. It was stated: If he put it in a basket and hung it on a tree, higher than ten hand-breadths high it is not an eruv; below ten hand-breadth it is an eruv but it is forbidden to move it; below three it is permitted. This is difficult. If his eruv is a valid eruv one should be permitted to move it. If one is forbidden to move it his eruv should not be a valid eruv. Rabbi Aḥa in the name of Rabbi Ḥinena: He might turn it upside down and annul the private domain created by it. Rabbi Yose said, this implies that a bench in the public domain high ten and wide four hand-breadths, since one may tilt it and annul the private domain created by it, it implies that his eruv is a valid eruv and it is permitted to move it. There, we have stated: “Two human-made and one a tree, or two as trees and one human-made is valid but one may not enter it on the holiday.” Here you are saying it is valid but one may not enter it on the holiday but there you are saying his eruv is a valid eruv and it is permitted to move it. Rabbi Jeremiah said, one on top, the other at the side. This learns from that and that learns from this. This learns from that, if there were two pegs protruding and he thatched over them it is valid and one uses it on the holiday. That learns from this, if he put it on a tree branch his eruv is a valid eruv and it is forbidden to move it. Rabbi Yose said, in both cases it is at the side. How is that? As Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa said in the name of Rabbi Zeˋira: This is Rabbi Eleazar ben Simon’s, as Rabbi Eleazar ben Simon says, one is permitted to use the sides of an animal on the Sabbath. There is no difference between sides of an animal and sides of a tree. How can you consider deep as high? Abba bar Rav Ḥuna said, if one said, my Sabbath rest is below. “If he put it on top of a stick or a pole as long as it was uprooted and inserted it is an eruv even if 100 cubits high.” Because it was uprooted and inserted; therefore if it was not uprooted and inserted his eruv is not a valideruv. Does this not disagree with Samuel, as Rav Jehudah said in the name of Samuel, explain it if its stem was four hand-breadths? Rabbi Mana said, only if a table was put on its top. It was stated: “Rabbi Eliezer says, if it was lost in the field his eruv is not a valid eruv; if it was lost in town his eruv is a valid eruv.” If it was lost in the field his eruv is not a valid eruv, for he cannot bring it in a Sabbath way. If it was lost in town his eruv is a valid eruv, for he can bring it through exempt space. Rabbi Eleazar said it correctly: what is the reason of the rabbis? Rabbi Abba the son of Rav Pappai said, it is Rabbi Meïr’s since Rabbi Meïr said, “he even originally reduces and takes.” Rabbi Meïr said this only for a holiday, maybe for the Sabbath? But here we are concerned with the Sabbath! Rabbi Abba Mari said, it is Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob’s, as we have stated there, “Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob said, one may tie in front of an animal that it should not leave.” There is no difference between tying and locking. That means, about a stone tower. But for a wooden tower he is like one who breaks the amphora to eat dried figs from it.
Mishnah
4 If it rolled outside the Sabbath boundary, if a pile fell on it, or it was burned or heave which became impure on Friday afternoon it is not eruv. After dark it is an eruv. If it is a matter of uncertainty, Rabbi Meïr and Rabbi Jehudah say, he is a donkey driver-camel driver. Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Simeon say that in case of doubt an eruv is qualified. Rabbi Yose said, Autolas testified in the name of five Elders that in case of a doubt an eruv is qualified.
Halakhah
Paragraph. “If it rolled outside the Sabbath boundary,” etc. They said only “if it became impure.” A doubt whether it became impure when it still was daylight, a doubt whether it became impure in the night. But if there was a doubt whether it was pure or impure one may use it for an eruv. Rabbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rabbi Jonathan: They followed the status quo ante. Rabbi Meïr and Rabbi Jehudah objected to Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Simeon: If it had been eaten when it still was daylight could it be permitted? It remains in its permitted state until it becomes known to you that it is forbidden. Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Simeon objected to Rabbi Meïr and Rabbi Jehudah: If it had been eaten after nightfall could it be prohibited? It remains in its prohibited state until it becomes known to you that it is permitted. Does one give him the 2’000 cubits to his house? Rabbi Abba bar Mamal said, one gives him. Rabbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, one does not give him. Rabbi Shammai said before Rabbi Yose in the name of Rabbi Aḥa: They disagree following Rabbi Meïr, but following Rabbi Jehudah everybody agrees that one gives him. The donkey driver-camel driver of Rabbi Meïr cannot be compared to the donkey driver-camel driver of Rabbi Jehudah. The donkey driver-camel driver of Rabbi Meïr cannot use his eruv since his eruv did not have the power to pull out his feet away from the people of his place; the donkey driver-camel driver of Rabbi Jehudah was thinking to pull out his feet away from the people of his place. There, we have stated: “If there is a doubt, it is pure; Rabbi Yose declares it impure.” Rabbi Jonah said, Rabbi Yose declared it impure only because of proof. And Rabbi Jonah said, Rabbi Yose declares impure even one miqweh. The argument of Rabbi Yose seems inverted, as we have stated: “Rabbi Yose said, Autolas testified in the name of five Elders that in case of a doubt an eruv is qualified.” And here you are saying so? There in his own name, but here in the name of five Elders. They wanted to say that he who says there “pure” says here “permitted”; he who says there “impure” says here “prohibited”. But even he who says there “impure” agrees here that it is permitted. Rabbi Ḥinena said, do they not only disagree about their words? And a doubt about their words is for leniency. But an eruv is a word of Torah; and a doubt about a word of the Torah is for restriction But is eruv a word of the Torah? Rabbi Jonathan said before the Elder Rabbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Rabbi Yose ben Laqonia: One whips because of Sabbath domains as word of the Torah. Rabbi Ḥiyya the Elder said to him, but for Sabbath there is only stoning or extirpation? He said to him, is there not written, do not eat from it raw? He said to him, is there written לֹא? No, it is written אַל! He said to him, is there not written, stay everybody where he is, no person shall leave his place on the Seventh day? He said to him, is there written לֹא? No, it is written אַל. Rabbi ben Rabbi Abun said, nevertheless each one kept to his tradition. Rabbi Samuel bar Sosarta said, they treated eruv as a doubt involving a deaf-mute person. Rabbi Jeremiah asked, so far if it exists, or even if it was burned? Rabbi Yose said, I confirmed this following what Rabbi Hoshaia said: You must conclude that the boundaries of Sabbath domains are not clear in the words of the Torah. Rabbi Mana asked, it is accepted that 2’000 cubits is not clear. Are 4’000 cubits not clear? Rabbi Simeon bar Carsana in the name of Rabbi Aḥa: The only clear case among all of them is the domain of twelve mil of the camp of Israel.
Mishnah
5 A person may make his eruv conditional and say, if Gentiles come from the East my eruv shall be in the West, but if they come from the West my eruv shall be in the East, if they come from both sides I shall be able to go where I want, if they come from neither side I shall be like the people of my village.
Halakhah
Paragraph. “A person may make his eruv conditional,” etc. So is the Mishnah: “A person can impose a condition on his ˋeruvin.” Rabbi Eleazar said, who is the Tanna of “if they came”, “if they did not come”? Rabbi Meïr! Which Rabbi Meïr? The colleagues say, Rabbi Meïr of Qiddušin. As it was stated: If somebody say to a woman: You are preliminarily married to me on condition that there will be rain. If rain fell, she is preliminarily married, otherwise she is not preliminarily married. Rabbi Meïr says, she is preliminarily married whether or not rain fell unless he doubled his condition. Everybody agrees that if he said, after rainfall, if it rained she is preliminarily married, otherwise she is not preliminarily married. But following the rabbis she is preliminarily married whether rain fell or not. Rabbi Yose said, it follows Rabbi Meïr in Eruvin, as we have stated there: “If it is a matter of uncertainty„ Rabbi Meïr and Rabbi Jehudah say, he is a donkey driver-camel driver.” Rabbi Yose said, Rabbi Meïr said this only as a restriction. Rabbi Mana said, that is correct. He cannot acquire his ˋeruv since he is not able to enjoy it. Why not like the people of his place? If he had decided to leave his place. And here, she is not preliminarily married to the first, since no rain came. She is not preliminarily married to the second, since the first did not double his condition. Rabbi Ḥaggai asked before Rabbi Yose: Is this “if” not a reaction? He answered, there is a difference since the land was in their hand and he wanted to take it away from them. Rabbi Jehudah ben Shalom, Rabbi Jehudah bar Pazy in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan. They formulated the symphon according to Rabbi Meïr in Qiddušin. Rabbi Jeremiah: Rabbi Ḥananiah, the colleague of the rabbis, asked: Why does it have to follow Rabbi Meïr but not also the rabbis? Did not Rabbi Abbahu say in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: The following is the contract text: “I, X son of Y, contract a preliminary marriage with you, Z, daughter of U, on condition that I shall give you property A and definitively marry you by day B. If that day should pass without me having taken you in, I shall have no claim on you.” Why can he not say “on condition” but not double his stipulation? If he did not double his stipulation, could this eliminate the preliminary marriage? Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, everywhere Rabbi Meïr holds that from “no” you infer “yes”, except here? Rabbi Mattaniah said, one is more restrictive in matters of incest and adultery. If he did not stipulate? Let us hear from the following: “If somebody made eruvim for two domains he can go to the South according to his eruv in the North, to the North according to his eruv in the South. If he split the domain he may not move from his place.” An animal belonging to two partners one of which made an eruv in the North and the other in the South. It may walk to the South according to the eruv of the one in the North and to the North according to the eruv of the one in the South. If they split the domain it may not move from its place. If they slaughtered it. Rav said, limbs suck from one another. Ulla bar Ismael said, limbs do not suck from one another. Rav agrees about an amphora that it was his part from before. So is the Mishnah: If Gentiles come from both sides, if Gentiles do not come from either side. “If Gentiles come from the East my eruv shall be in the West.” Some Tannaim state, to the East. He who says to the East, about these officers, he who says to the West, about these Romans.
Mishnah
6 If a Sage comes from the East my eruv shall be to the East, if he comes from the West my eruv shall be to the West, on both sides I shall be able to go where I want, if they come from neither side I shall be like the people of my village. Rabbi Jehudah says, if one of them was his teacher he has to go to his teacher, if both were his teachers he may go to where he wants.
Halakhah
Paragraph. “If a Sage comes from the East,” etc. Some Tannaim state, to the West. He who says, in the East, about these Sages. He who says, in the West, about a fundraiser. Paragraph. “Rabbi Jehudah says, if one of them was,” etc. Rabbi Jehudah says if one of them was a fundraiser, he should go to the fundraiser; if both of them were fundraisers he may go to the place of his choosing.
Mishnah
7 Rabbi Eliezer says, if a holiday is next to a Sabbath either before or after, a person may make two eruvin and say: my first eruv shall be to the East and the second to the West, the first to the West and the second to the East, my first eruv but on the second like the people of my town. My eruv for the first day, but the second like the people of my town; the second day, but the first like the people of my town.. But the Sages say, either one makes an eruv to one side or one does not make an eruv at all; one makes an eruv for both days or one does not make an eruv at all. What should he do? He brings it on the first day, stays there when it gets dark, takes it and goes home, On the second day he brings it, stays there when it gets dark, eats it and goes home. It turns out that he profits from his going and his eruv. If it is eaten on the first day, it is an eruv for the first but is not an eruv for the second. Rabbi Eliezer told them, you agree with me that they are two kinds if sanctities.
Halakhah
“Rabbi Eliezer says,” etc. “But the Sages say, either one makes an eruv to one side.” So is the Mishnah: Either one makes an eruv to one side for two days or one does not make an eruv at all. Rabbi Eliezer agrees that one cannot make an eruv for half a day in the South and one for half a day in the North, for half a day in the South and one for half a day in the North for the people of his place. They told him, just as you did not split the day for us, so do not split two days for us. They agree that he should not put them in a basket. Rabbi Abba said, that he should not forget and eat it. If he did put it into a basket, he should bring the basket there. If he eats one of them he is a donkey driver-camel driver. There we have stated: “A flask which had been immersed on the same day and they filled it from an amphora with ṭevel tithe, if he said that this shall be heave of the tithe after nightfall then it is heave of the tithe. If he said this is eruv, he did not say anything.” Rabbi Jonah said, Rabbi Ḥama bar Uqba asked, is this Mishnah not following Rabbi Eliezer, since Rabbi Eliezer said, one does not make an eruv for a person after nightfall? Rabbi Jeremiah in the name of Rabbi Zeˋira: There it is everybody’s opinion. But here he acquires a place for Sabbath rest for two days while it still is a working day. Rabbi Ḥaggai asked, if it was Thursday and he said, this should acquire for me a place for Sabbath rest, in Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion he acquired, in the rabbis’ opinion did he not acquire? Rabbi Yose said, why can a person not make an eruv from holiday to Sabbath? Because a person makes an eruv from Sabbath eve to the Sabbath. But here, since he can make an eruv from Sabbath eve to the Sabbath, he may make an eruv even from Thursday to the Sabbath. “Rabbi Eliezer said to them, do you not agree with me that if he used a loaf to make an eruv for the first day, that he may use a loaf to make an eruv for the second day, that if he ate it on the first day it is an eruv for the first day but is not an eruv for the second? Therefore these are two sanctities. They answered him, do you not agree with us that a person does not make a new eruv on a holiday? Therefore it is one sanctity.”
Mishnah
8 Rabbi Jehudah said, if a person was afraid that the New Year’s Day might be complemented, he makes two eruvin and says, my first eruv should be to the East and the second to the West, the first to the West and the second to the East, my eruv for the first day and on the second like the people of my village, for the second day but the first day like the people of my village. But the Sages did not agree with him.
Halakhah
Paragraph. “Rabbi Jehudah said, if a person was afraid that the New Year’s Day might be complemented,” etc. Because they disagreed: May the remainders of a wick, a fire, or oil that burned out on the Sabbath be lit on the holiday? Rav and Rabbi Ḥanina both say it is forbidden, but Rabbi Joḥanan says, it is permitted. Rabbi Mana said before Rabbi Yudan, is it the reverse regarding an egg? He said to him, since the rabbis compare it, it means that the two cases are identical. They said in the name of four Elders: If somebody’s eruv was eaten on the first day he is like the people of his town on the second day. Rav Ḥuna said in the name of Rav: Practice follows the four Elders. Rav Ḥisda asked: the argument of Rav seems to be inverted. There, he makes it two sanctities, but here he makes it one sanctity. Because they disagreed: May the remainders of a wick, a fire, or oil that burned out on the Sabbath be lit on the holiday? Rav and Rabbi Ḥanina both say it is forbidden, but Rabbi Joḥanan says, it is permitted. Rabbi Mana said before Rabbi Yudan, is it the reverse regarding an egg? He said to him, since the rabbis compare it, it means that the two cases are identical. Rabbi Aḥa said it from study, Rabbi Yose said it from reflection; the four Elders concur with Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Mana said before Rabbi Yose: between Rabbi Meïr and Rabbi Jehudah, does practice not follow Rabbi Jehudah? The four Elders concur with Rabbi Eliezer! Since there where his eruv did not enter in force did I not say that he removed his feet from the inhabitants of his town, here where his eruv did enter in force not so much more? If he made an eruv with a loaf on the first day, he makes the eruv with a loaf on the second, but it must be the same loaf. If he made an eruv with his feet on the first day, he makes the eruv with his feet on the second. If he made an eruv with his feet, may he make an eruv with a loaf, with a loaf may he not make an eruv with his feet? Since you are saying there, with his feet he may not make an eruv with a loaf, then with his feet may he not make the eruv with his feet? To make it easy for the poor person who has no loaf. Since you are saying there, with his feet he may not make an eruv with a loaf, then with a loaf may he not make the eruv with his feet? To make it easy for the rich person that he does not have to go and make the eruv with his feet. Since you are saying there, with his feet he may not make an eruv with a loaf, then with a loaf may he not make the eruv with a loaf? Rabbi Abun in the name of the rabbis there, they made him as if going to his town.
Mishnah
9 In addition, Rabbi Jehudah says that a person may stipulate about a basket on the first day and eat from it on the second; similarly an egg which was laid on the first may be eaten on the second; but the Sages did not agree with him.
Halakhah
“And he says if today is holiday my words should be void but he gives a name to his tithes but does not eat from it. On the second day he gives a name to his tithes and eats from it.” Rav’s argument seems inverted. There he treats it as one sanctity but here he treats it as two sanctities. There it is one long sanctity but here one is holy, the other profane. The rabbis’ argument seems inverted. There they treat it as two sanctities, but here they make it one sanctity. There a holiday next to a Sabbath is like weekday next to Sabbath but here both are equal. The Sages agree with Rabbi Jehudah about the two days of the New Year which are an institution of the early prophets Rabbi Abba, Rabbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: My mother’s sons bore ill-will against me, they made me a guard of the vineyards; my vineyard I did not guard. What caused me to guard the vineyards? Because my vineyard I did not guard. What caused me to keep two days in Syria? Because I did not keep one day in the Land. I was thinking that I would be rewarded for both, but I am rewarded only for one. What caused me to separate two ḥallot in Syria? Because I did not separate one ḥallah in the Land. I was thinking that I would be rewarded for both, but I am rewarded only for one. Rabbi Joḥanan read for them, but I Gave them prescriptions which are not Good and laws by which they cannot live. Rabbi Abbahu went to Alexandria and made them carry lulavim on the Sabbath. Rabbi Immi heard it and said, who brings them Rabbi Abbahu every year? Rabbi Yose sent and wrote to them: even though we wrote you the order of holidays, do not change the usage of your departed ancestors.
Mishnah
10 Rabbi Dosa ben Hyrkanos said, the reader on New Year’s Day says “save us, Eternal, our God, on this Day of the New Moon, whether it be today or tomorrow.” The next day he says, “whether it be today or was yesterday”; but the Sages did not agree with him.
Halakhah
Paragraph: “Rabbi Dosa ben Hyrkanos said, the reader”, etc. Because he says “whether it be today or tomorrow.” Or it comes following what Rabbi Jacob the son of Rabbi Aḥa said, the reader on New Year’s Day does not have to mention the New Moon. Also here it is so.
Mishnah
1 If somebody was taken out by Gentiles or an evil spirit he only has four cubits. If they brought him back it is as if he had not left. If they took him to another town or put him into a sheep pen, or a sheep corral, Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah say he may walk throughout it; Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Aqiba say, he only has four cubits. It happened that they came from Brundisium when the ship went out to sea; Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah walked throughout it; Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Aqiba did not move beyond their four cubits, for they wanted to be strict with themselves.
Halakhah
“If somebody was taken out by Gentiles,” etc. Otherwise what would we say? He should be considered like someone who left with permission and he should have 2,000 cubits in every direction. Therefore it is necessary to say that “he only has four cubits.” Where do the four cubits come from? Everyone must stay in his spot. And where do the 2,000 cubits come from? No one should leave his place on the Seventh Day. Or could the meanings be reversed? It was stated: “Issy ben Aqiba says, “Place, place.” The word place is used here, and it is used there, I will give you a place. Since the place mentioned there includes 2,000 cubits, so the place mentioned here includes 2,000 cubits.” “The four cubits which they mentioned are his full length and outstretched arms. Rabbi Judah says, his body and three 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 diagonally. Rabbi Jehudah ben Pazi asked, the four cubits which they mentioned: do they constitute a domain or not? 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. Rabbi Zeʿira said, the Mishnah says that the four cubits which they mentioned are a domain, as we have stated, “provided that one does not transfer anything into the other’s domain.” It only said, “if they brought him back.” Therefore, if he returned by himself, he is forbidden. Rabbi Aḥa said, this is Rabbi Neḥemiah’s opinion. As it was stated: “Produce which came into the public domain and returned, if this happened by mistake it may be eaten, but if it was intentional it may not be eaten. Rabbi Neḥemiah says, whether this happened by mistake or intentionally it may not be eaten unless it was returned by mistake.” Rabbi Neḥemiah parallels Rabbi Meïr, as it was stated: “If somebody tithed or cooked on the Sabbath, if this happened by mistake it may be eaten, but if it was intentional it may not be eaten, the words of Rabbi Meïr.” If he acquired a place of Sabbath rest and then Gentiles came and surrounded him with a barrier. Rabbi Ḥuna said, the barrier is of no use to him but he may walk 2,000 cubits and carry within four. Ḥiyya the son of Rav said, he walks and carries within 2,000. Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rabbi Abuna in the name of Ḥiyya the son of Rav: He walks within 2,000 and carries within 4,000 cubits by throwing. They wanted to say, their disagreement follows Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Aqiba; but according to Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah they do not disagree. Even according to Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah they disagree; one who had acquired a place of Sabbath rest is in a better position than one who had not acquired a place of Sabbath rest. If they put him at the door of the sheep pen. In the opinion of Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Aqiba one gives him two cubits inside and two cubits outside. In the opinion of Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah one does not allow two cubits inside and two cubits outside, for if you said that one allows him two cubits inside and two cubits outside then he could carry in the entire sheep pen. If they put him in the middle of the sheep pen and the sheep pen was partially inside the Sabbath domain and partially outside the Sabbath domain. Rabbi Aḥa said it from study, Rabbi Judah said it from reflection: This is the disagreement of Rav Ḥuna and of Ḥiyya the son of Rav. Rabbi Zeʿira, Rav Ḥuna in the name of Rav: Since Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Aqiba wanted to be strict with themselves, this implies that practice follows Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah. Rabbi Abba in the name of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Ashi: also for a sheep pen, or a sheep corral, practice follows Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah. Ḥananiah the son of Rabbi Joshua’s brother says, the entire day they were arguing with one another until my uncle came, settled their disagreement, and ruled that practice should follow Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah for a ship and Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Aqiba for a sheep pen, or a sheep corral. What is the difference between a sheep corral and a ship? The colleagues say, for a ship because its walls are part of itself; Rabbi Zeʿira said, because one removes it from these four cubits and puts it into those four cubits. What practical difference is there between their opinions? If it was a covered walkway, according to the colleagues it is permitted, according to Rabbi Zeʿira it is forbidden. If the sea was calm, according to the colleagues it is forbidden, according to Rabbi Zeʿira it is permitted. Rabbi Zeʿira said, the Mishnah says that the four cubits which they mentioned are not a domain.
Mishnah
2 Once they did not enter the port until after nightfall. They asked Rabban Gamliel, may we disembark? He told them, “It is permitted, since I was already watching and we were inside the Sabbath domain before nightfall.”
Halakhah
“Once they only entered the port,” etc. Rabban Gamliel had a telescope with which he could estimate distances across level ground. And why before nightfall? Even after nightfall; is this not Rabban Gamliel’s opinion? Explain it as a case where the port was larger than two bet se’ah, or the walls were not ten handbreadths high but were not open wider than ten cubits nor were the standing sections opposite standing sections and the breaches opposite breaches.
Mishnah
3 If somebody left with permission and was then told that the deed already had been done he has 2,000 cubits in each direction. If this reached him inside the Sabbath domain it is as if he never left, for all those who leave to rescue others may return to their place.
Halakhah
“If somebody left with permission,” etc. For otherwise what would we say? That he should be treated like somebody who left under compulsion and he should have only four cubits. Therefore it was necessary to say, “he has 2,000 cubits in each direction.” Rav Ḥuna says, only if four cubits each intersect with the domain of Tiberias and with the domain of Magdala. Rabbi Ḥuna in the name of Rav Ada bar Aḥawa, Rabbi La in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish. Even if he went to Magdala and returned he is treated as if he had not left. Rabbi Joshua the Southerner asked: So far this applies if he left by mistake. Even if he left intentionally? Rabbi Phineas said, the Mishnah says so: “for all those who leave to rescue others may return to their place.” It was stated: “Gentiles who attack villages near the border to steal even straw or wood, one goes out armed against them and brings the weapon back to its place. If they attack villages away from the border one goes out only if it is a matter of life. In earlier times they stored the weapons in a house close to the wall. Once they were attacked by enemies; they crowded together to get their weapons and killed more of one another than the enemies killed. They ruled that everyone should take his weapons from his own house.”
Mishnah
4 If somebody sat down on the road and, when he gets up, finds he is close to a town, since he had not intended to enter it he may not enter, the words of Rabbi Meïr. Rabbi Judah says, he may enter. Rabbi Judah said, it happened that Rabbi Tarfon entered without having intended to.
Halakhah
“If somebody slept on the road,” etc. They said, wasn’t Rabbi Tarfon’s study house within 2,000 cubits? Or maybe he established his place of Sabbath rest in the town when it was still daytime? It was found stated: In the morning the sun shone. They told him, “Rabbi, the town is right here. Please enter.”
Mishnah
5 If somebody slept on the road and did not realize that night had fallen he has 2,000 cubits in every direction, the words of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri, but the Sages say, he only has four cubits. Rabbi Eleazar says, he is in the center; Rabbi Judah says, in any direction which he chooses. Rabbi Judah agrees that if he selected one he cannot change his mind.
Halakhah
“If somebody slept on the road and did not realize until after night had fallen,” etc. Rabbi Zeʿira in the name of Rabbi Ḥasdai. Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri’s reason is this: Since if he had been awake he would have acquired a Sabbath domain, when he was sleeping he did not acquire a Sabbath domain; he only has 2,000 cubits in every direction. Rabbi Judah says, even if he was awake and did not acquire a Sabbath domain; he only has 2,000 cubits in every direction. Rabbi Judah’s statement follows Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri’s but goes further. For Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri said, since if he had been awake he would have acquired a Sabbath domain, if he was awake and did not acquire a Sabbath domain; he only has 2,000 cubits in every direction. Rabbi Ḥuna said, Rav Naḥman bar Jacob asked: if a convert immersed himself after sunrise. “Since if he had been awake he would have acquired a Sabbath domain,” what does Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri say in this case? Let us learn from the following. For Rabbi Isaac bar Naḥman said in the name of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi, practice follows Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri. If he selected while it still was daytime, he may change his mind while it still is daytime; after nightfall he may change his mind after nightfall. If he selected while it still was daytime, and the day became holy for him? Let us learn from the following: “he may not enter, the words of Rabbi Meïr; Rabbi Judah says, he may enter.” This was not said about this passage but about the start of the chapter, about “if somebody was taken out by Gentiles or an evil spirit,” it was said. Rabbi Abun said, “Rabbi Judah agrees that if he selected one he cannot change his mind.”
Mishnah
6 If they were two and some of the cubits of one were inside the cubits of the other they bring and eat in the middle provided that one does not transfer anything into the other’s domain. If they were three and the middle one’s area was enclosed between the other two, he is permitted with them and they with him but the two outside ones are forbidden with each other. Rabbi Simeon says, to what is this similar? To three courtyards open to one another and open to the public domain. If both outer ones made an eruv with the middle one, that one is permitted with them and they with it but the two outside ones are forbidden with each other.
Halakhah
“If they were two, and some of the cubits of one,” etc. Even though Rabbi Ḥananiah ben Antigonos disagrees with the rabbis about the cubits he agrees with them here about the areas surrounding towns.
Mishnah
7 If somebody was on the road and afraid that it would get dark but he knew of a tree or a wall and says, “my Sabbath rest will be under it,” his declaration has no effect. “My Sabbath rest is at its roots,” he walks from where he is standing to the roots 2,000 cubits and from the roots to his house 2,000 cubits; it turns out that he may walk 4,000 cubits after nightfall. If he does not know or is unfamiliar with the rules and said, my Sabbath rest shall be at my place, his location allows him 2,000 cubits in every direction, circular according to Rabbi Ḥanania ben Antigonos. But the Sages say it is square, like a square table, so that he gains the corners.
Halakhah
If one recognized the place and the other did not; the one who recognized it may go with the one who did not and the one who did not recognize it may go with the one who did.
Mishnah
8 This is what they meant when they said: the poor person makes an eruv with his feet. Rabbi Meïr says, we only have the poor. Rabbi Judah says, both poor and rich; they said that one makes an eruv with bread, only to make it easier for the rich person, so that he does not have to go out and make the eruv with his feet.
Halakhah
“Rabbi Simeon says, to what is this similar,” etc. “If somebody was on the road and is afraid that it would get dark,” etc. “If he does not know or is unfamiliar with the rules,” etc. “This is what they meant when they said: the poor person makes an eruv with his feet,” etc. Rabbi Meïr holds that the main point of an eruv is through a loaf. Why did they say, through his feet? To make it easy for the poor person who has no loaf. And Rabbi Judah said, the main point of an eruv is through his feet. Why did they say, through a loaf? To make it easier for the rich person, so that he does not have to go out on foot. Even though Rabbi Judah said, the main point of an eruv is by his feet, he should not simply sit in his house and say, my Sabbath rest should be acquired at a certain place. But he should go out to the field and say, my Sabbath rest should be acquired at this place, and wait there until it gets dark; then return to his village. And it was stated: “It happened that the family of Bet Mamma and the family of Bet Gorion in Ruma were distributing dried figs in years of drought, and the poor of Shiḥin would go out, make an eruv with their feet, and wait there until nightfall. The next day they would go there, eat there, and return. And everything they did was on the advice of the Sages.”
Mishnah
9 If somebody started to go to another town for which one makes an eruv but another person intercepted him, he is permitted to go but the rest of the town’s residents are forbidden to go, the words of Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Meïr says, anybody who could have made an eruv but did not make the eruv is a donkey driver-camel driver.
Halakhah
“If somebody started to go to another town.” This can be interpreted in two ways. If he said, I will make an eruv for you and your townspeople, and made the eruv for his townspeople but not for him. He is forbidden to go in that direction but permitted to go in all other directions in his town; they are permitted to go in that direction but forbidden to go in all other directions in their town. It can be interpreted another way. If he said, I will make an eruv for you and your townspeople and made the eruv neither for his townspeople nor for him. He is permitted to go in that direction for his feet had already acquired his place of Sabbath rest for him the day before; they are forbidden to go in that direction but permitted to go in all other directions in his town.
Mishnah
10 If somebody left the Sabbath domain by even one cubit he may not reenter. Rabbi Simeon says, Rabbi Eleazar says, at two cubits he may reenter, but at three he may not reenter. If somebody was outside the Sabbath domain at nightfall by even one cubit he may not enter. Rabbi Simeon says, even at fifteen cubits he may enter since those who stretch the measuring ropes leave a margin to allow for errors.
Halakhah
“If somebody left the Sabbath domain,” etc. Rabbi Aḥa in the name of Rabbi Ḥinena and Rav Ḥasdai both are saying, he said only “two.” Therefore could he enter at two cubits and a little more? This is Rabbi Eleazar’s opinion, as Rabbi Eleazar said, “at two cubits he may reenter, but at three he may not reenter.” Rabbi Yose told him, one says at the end, “at three he may not reenter,” therefore at a little less than three he may reenter. They wanted to say, what Rabbi Eleazar said is about one who left, therefore not about one who stayed overnight. It was found stated, one is like the other. They wanted to say, what Rabbi Simeon said is about one who stayed overnight, therefore not about one who left. It was found stated, one is like the other.
Mishnah
1 How does one complete towns? A house is recessed, a house is protruding, a superstructure is recessed, a superstructure is protruding. If there were walls of ruins ten hand-breadths high or bridges or mausoleums containing dwellings they extend the measure correspondingly and one makes it like a rectangular table, in order to include the corners.
Halakhah
“How does one complete towns,” etc. “A house is recessed,” one moves it out in line with the town; “a superstructure is protruding,” one moves the town out in line with it. Rav says meˋabberin, and Samuel says me′abberin. He who says meˋabberin, one adds a limb אבר to it. And he who says me‘abberin, like a pregnant עוברה woman. There, we have stated: “One does not recite the benediction over a lamp unless one has profited from its light.” Rav says yeˋutu, and Samuel says ye‘utu. He who says ye′utu, but with this we shall be a Greeable to you. He who says ye‘utu, to know, to inform the weary of wisdom. There we have stated: “Before the holidays of the Gentiles.” Rav stated ˋedehen and Samuel stated ‘edehen. He who says ˋedehen, for the day of their misfortuneאידם is near. He who says ‘edehen, they are their witnesses עידיהם, etc. How does Samuel deal with Rav's reason, they are their witnesses? In the future they will bring to naught their worshippers on the Day of Judgment. Rabbi Joḥanan in the name of Rabbi Hoshaia: one adds a limb to it. He lifted his eyes and looked at him. He told him, why are you looking at me? Do I need you that you enjoy it? Thirteen years he went and came before his teacher even though he did not need him. Rabbi Samuel in the name of Rabbi Zeˋira: Was it not enough for him to have paid his respects to his teacher since anybody who pays his respects to his teacher is as if he paid his respects to the Divine Presence. Rabbi Berekhiah, Rabbi Jeremiah in the name of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba. It is written and Moses would take the Tent, etc. How far away was it? One mil. It is not written “and it was that anybody asking Moses” but and it was that anybody asking the Eternal. From here that anybody visiting his teacher is as if he was visiting the Divine Presence. Rabbi Ḥelbo, Rabbi Ḥuna in the name of Rav: It is written, Eliahu from Tisbe said, etc. Was not Eliahu the ruler of the prophets? But it teaches that all the time he was standing before his teacher Aḥiyya from Shilo it was as if he stood before the Divine Presence. Rabbi Ḥelbo in the name of those of the House of Shilo: Even when Eliahu wanted water for his face Elisha would put it on his hands. What is the reason? Here is Elisha ben Shafaṭ, it is not written here “who studied Torah”, but who poured water on Eliahu’s hands. It is written: The lad Samuel was serving the Eternal before Eli. Did he not only serve Eli? But this teaches that all service which he rendered before his teacher Eli was as if he rendered if before the Divine Presence. Rabbi Ismael stated: And Aaron and all the Elders of Israel came to eat bread with Moses’s father-in-law before god. Did they eat before God? But from here that anyone who receives a friend is as if he received the Divine Presence. Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rabbi Yasa in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan, from where do you augment? From the lintel 2’000 cubits. Rabbi Yose said to Rabbi Yasa bar Aḥa: It seems reasonable only from the superstructure. But in front of the town it is unlimited. He said, this also is my opinion. He said to him, what did you see to say “the superstructure”? Or should we say these in the back of the superstructure? Rav Naḥman said, at the end of the country. The word of Rabbi Simeon implies this, since “Rabbi Simeon ben Yoḥai said, I can cause that one may walk from Tyre to Sidon, from Tiberias to Sepphoris, by caves and by barns.” May one add superstructure to superstructure? The word of Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish implies that one adds superstructure to superstructure, since Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish said, I can cause that Bet Maˋon be in the completion of Tiberias. You consider the stadium as if it were full of houses, and the castra are within 70 and remainder of the stadium, and Bet Maˋon is within 70 and remainder of the castra. If one considers the superstructure, the mausoleum of Siricon is not within 70 and remainder, but if one considers the pottery, the mausoleum of Siricon is within 70 and remainder. May one add completion to completion? The word of Rabbi Simeon implies that one adds completion to completion, since “Rabbi Simeon ben Yoḥai said, I can cause that one may walk from Tyre to Sidon, from Tiberias to Sepphoris, by caves and by barns.” Here for walking, there for completion. Rabbi Aḥa said, the Elder Rabbi Ḥiyya and Bar Qappara disagree. One said, this you are saying only about a large city. But for a small town the addition should not be more than the core. But the other said, whether large or small, 2’000 is sufficient. Rabbi Phineas said, it happened that a bright student studied completions for three and a half years from his teacher; he went and completed Galilee. He could not finish to complete the South before the time made it impossible. Rabbi Abba, Rav Jehudah in the name of Rav: If a town is built like a bow, if between the ends there is a distance of 3’999 cubits he walks its entirety and outside it 2’000; 4’000 he only has 2’000 cubits from the place of his eruv. Rabbi Aḥa said, Rabbi Samuel explained it. If he would put his sandals at one place he could go outside and put them on; and if he would put his sandals at another place he could go outside and put them on. He could come from either side to the outside. From one side it is forbidden, from both sides it is permitted. Rabbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah. If there was a large city and in it a ditch ten hand-breadths deep and four wide, one looks where it is full of earth and pebbles. Otherwise one considers it open. Rabbi Abba, Ammi bar Ezechiel in the name of Rav. If a city is built on the banks of a river, if between it and the river are four hand-breadths one measures from the wall, three one measures from the outer bank of the river unless the river be wide more than 70 and remainder. Where do we hold? If it descends ten hand-breadths in three cubits one measures from the outer bank of the river, if in four cubits one measures from the wall. So where we hold is between three and four. Rav said, in a town built of tents, everybody measures from his tent. If there were three huts and three barns one measures from the outer one. Issy objected, is it not written, a sign you should have outside the camp? How could they relieve themselves outside? Rabbi Ḥiyya the son of Rabbi Sabbatai asked, how could they go to Moses’s house of study? Moses built them three huts and three barns. Rabbi Yose says, because they were travelling and camping by the Word, was it not temporary? Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, since the Holy One, praise to Him, has promised them that he would bring them into the Land, it is as if it were permanent. Because of this Rabbi Abbin said, Moses built them three huts and three barns. “One makes it rectangular in the four directions of the world, so that its Western direction be in the West of the world and its Southern direction be in the South of the world. Rabbi Yose said, if he does not know how to determine the directions let him go and learn from the solstices. From the place where the sun rises on the day of the summer solstice to the place where it rises on the day of the winter solstice is Eastern direction; from the place where the sun goes down on the day of the winter solstice to the place where it goes down on the day of the summer solstice is Western direction; the remainder are North and South. That is what is written, it goes to the South and turns to the North. It goes to the South during the day and turns to the North during the night; all around in circles goes the wind, to its circuits returns the wind, these are Eastern and Western directions.” One understands this for Shilo and the Temple, as Rabbi Aḥa said in the name of Samuel bar Rav Isaac, how much did the earlier prophets exercise themselves to make the Eastern gate so that the sun be exactly on it on the summer solstice and the winter solstice. It was called by seven names: the gate “desist”, the foundation gate, the sun gate, the entrance gate, the middle gate the new gate, the upper gate. The gate “desist” since there the impure separate; that is what is written, desist, impure one calls them. The foundation gate, for there practice was founded. The sun gate, since it was directed towards sunrise, as you are saying, Who says to the sun not to shine. The entrance gate, since it serves as entry and exit. The middle gate, since it is fixed between two gates. The new gate, for there the Sopherim renewed practice. The upper gate, since it was higher than the courtyard of Israel and the courtyard of women. The Temple had another distinction. Who was determining them the directions in the desert? Rabbi Aḥa said, the Ark did determine the directions for them. That is what is written, then travelled the Kohatites, the carriers of the Sanctuary, this is the Ark. And the Mererites erected the dwelling before they came, the Kohatites on whom the Ark was placed. How did Israel travel in the desert? Rabbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina and Rabbi Hoshaia. One said, like a chest, but the other said, like a beam. He who said like a chest, just as they camped so they travelled. He who said like a beam, the collector of all camps with their armies. How does he who said like a beam explain him who said like a chest, just as they camped so they travelled? Just as they camped following the Word, so they travelled following the Word. How does he who said like a chest explain him who said like a beam, the collector of all camps with their armies? Since the tribe of Dan was so populous it travelled last and to anybody who had lost anything they would return it to him; that is what is written, the collector of all camps with their armies. It was stated in the name of Rabbi Jehudah: “Also its ledges and walls were measured with it.” Rav Hoshaia asked: is the airspace of a courtyard measured with it? Let us hear from the following: A house which was breached on one side is measured with it, from two sides it is not measured with it. Rabbi Abbin in the name of Rav Jehudah, if its beam had been removed. But if its beam had not been removed it is measured with it. If the beam had been removed is it not like the airspace of a courtyard? There it was enclosed as a dwelling, here it was not enclosed as a dwelling. “If he measures he should not be measuring from the center since he would lose, but from the corners.”
Mishnah
2 One gives a fore-court to the city, the words of Rabbi Meïr; but the Sages say that a fore-court was mentioned only between two villages, if each of them has seventy cubits and a remainder, the fore-courts of both make it one. Similarly three villages forming a triangle, if between the two outer ones there are 141⅓ cubits, the middle one makes all three to be one.
Halakhah
Paragraph. “One gives a fore-court to the city,” etc. Rav Ḥuna in the name of Rav: Rabbi Meïr and the rabbis explain the same verse. Rabbi Meïr explained: From the city wall, why does the verse say, outwards? From here that one gives a fore-court to the city. The rabbis explained, outwards, why does the verse say, from the city wall? From that one does not give a fore-court to the city. Does this not mean that one gives a fore-court to the city? Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rabbi Abuna, Rabbi Naḥum in the name of Rabbi Samuel bar Abba, the Mishnah is finished. Paragraph. “Similarly three villages forming a triangle,” etc. Samuel said, if they are in a line. Bar Qappara said, it they are like a tripod. Which one is the middle one? It is understandable for him who said, they are in a line. For him who said, they are like a tripod, which one is the middle one? Rabbi Samuel, Rabbi Berekhiah’s brother, said, if you are measuring from one, the other is the middle one; if you are measuring from one, the other is the middle one. Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rabbi Yasa in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina, only if the middle one not be farther than 2’000 cubits. Rabbi Yose said, I objected before Rabbi Jocob bar Aḥa, did we not state: “if between the two outer ones are 141⅓ cubits, the middle one makes all three to be one.” To permit the two outer ones. If there were two, could the middle one be counted for either side? His problem was if there were two people walking. But if one person is walking, it is counted for either side.
Mishnah
3 One only measures with a rope of 50 cubits, neither less nor more. One should only measure holding up to his heart. If he was measuring and came to a valley or a wall he circumvents it and returns to his measurement, on condition that he not exit the Sabbath domain. If he cannot circumvent it, about this said Rabbi Dositheos ben Yannai in the name of Rabbi Meïr: I heard that one strip-measures in the mountains.
Halakhah
Paragraph. “One only measures with a rope of 50 cubits,” etc. How much is the measure of the Sabbath domain? 40 ropes. “Neither less” since it can be tightened and increases, “nor more” since it gets loose and loses. Some Tannaim state, one measures with a linen rope, but some Tannaim state, with a chain rope, and some Tannaim state, with a rope of four cubits. Rabbi Joshua said, there is no truer measure than with chains, but what can I do since in Prophets it is written ropes, a linen twine was in his hand and a measuring rod. If from him to a river were 75 cubits. Two Amoraim, one said, he measures with a rope of 50 cubits and returns 25 cubits; but the other one said, he measures with a rope of 50 cubits and the remainder he measures with a rope of four cubits. If the river was narrow on top and wide below, up to 50 cubits one considers it as if full of dust and pebbles; otherwise one sees it inclining upwards and inclining downwards. If the river was bent, Rabbi Ḥasdai says, with telescopes he estimates in the plain and does the same with a mountain. Rabbi Aḥa, Rabbi Ḥinena, Rabbi Jeremiah in the name of Rabbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: only if the measure results in the mountain four hand-breadths as a place. Rabbi Yose, Rabbi Abuna in the name of Rav Jehudah, Rabbi Yudan has it in the name of Rav: If one holds it high above his head and the other by his feet, everybody agrees that one strip-measures. The high one over his head and the low one on his hips, everybody agrees that one strip-measures. Where do they disagree? On his heart; Rabbi Meïr says one strip-measures but the Sages say one does not strip-measure. Rabbi Abba in the name of Rabbi Jehudah, Rabbi Zeˋira in the name of Mar Uqba: One strip-measures only with a rope of 50 cubits. Rabbi Zeˋira in the name of Rav Ḥasdai: One strip-measures only in mountains but not for the place of breaking the calf’s neck. This would be acceptable for him who says, 1000 cubits of open space and 2000 cubits of Sabbath domain. But for him who says, 1000 cubits of open space and 2000 cubits of fields and vineyards, did they not learn the Sabbath domain from the Levitic cities? For the main thing one does not strip-measure; does one strip-measure for the derivative? From where that one does not bury in Levitic cities? Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Yose bar Ḥanina: And their open spaces shall be for their animals … and all their lives. They were given for living; they were not given for burials.
Mishnah
4 Surveys may only be made by professionals. If one extended the place and restricted it at another, one listens to him who extends. Even a slave or a slave woman are trustworthy to say up to here is the Sabbath domain since the Sages said in these matters not to restrict but to be lenient.
Halakhah
Paragraph. “Surveys may only be made by professionals,” etc. One does not listen to a non-professional who added. Rabbi Hoshaia said: You must conclude that the boundaries of Sabbath domains are not clear in the words of the Torah. Rabbi Mana asked, it is accepted that 2’000 cubits is not clear. Are 4’000 cubits not clear? Rabbi Simeon bar Carsana in the name of Rabbi Aḥa: The only clear case among all of them is the domain of twelve mil of the camp of Israel.
Mishnah
5 A village which is the property of one person and becomes owned by many can have one eruv in its entirety; but for one of multiple ownership which became one of single ownership one does not make an eruv in its entirety unless one leaves outside a part like the town Ḥadašah in Jehudah which has 50 inhabitants, the words of Rabbi Jehudah. Rabbi Simeon says, three courtyards of two houses each.
Halakhah
“A village which is the property of one person and becomes owned by many,” etc. It was stated in the name of Rabbi Jehudah: One does not make an eruv in parts. Rabbi Jehudah’s argument is inverted since Rabbi Ḥiyya stated: How does one permit public domain? Rabbi Jehudah says, a lath on each side or a beam on each side, but the Sages say, a lath and a beam on one side and he makes a door frame on the other side. And here he says so? It was not said about this but about the following: Even a big city like Antioch, if it has a single gate one may make an eruv. It was stated in the name of Rabbi Jehudah: One does not make an eruv in parts. Rabbi Yose said, this implies that if people in an alley put a beam in the middle of the alley then these are permitted and those are prohibited. If both of them put it up, both are prohibited. What does he do? He puts the beam at the entrance of the alley and permits the alley. If five alleys opened into one alley and they put their beam in the middle of the alley then these are permitted and those are prohibited. If both of them put it up, both are prohibited. What does he do? He puts the beam at the entrance of the alley and permits the alley. Rabbi Phineas immigrated here. He looked at the entrance of the market of the shearers and said to them, did you split your eruv? Rabbi Jehudah bar Shalom told him, it was made to reinforce the houses. “Unless one leaves outside like the town Ḥadašah in Jehudah.” As Senan, Ḥadašah, and Migdal-Gad. “Which has 5 inhabitants,” even men, women, and children. Assi said, but only Israel. Rabbi Abba bar Mamal, Simeon bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rav: If they open into it. Rabbi Mana said, since they open into it they all are made one domain.
Mishnah
6 If somebody was in the East and told his son to make him an eruv in the West, or in the West and told his son to make him an eruv in the East, if there are from his place to his house 2’000 cubits but to his eruv more than this, he is permitted up to his house but forbidden to his eruv; if to his eruv 2’000 cubits but to his house more than that, he is permitted up to his eruv but forbidden to his house. If somebody puts his eruv in the complement of the town he did not do anything. If he puts it outside the domain what he had gained he loses.
Halakhah
Paragraph. “If somebody was in the East,” etc. Because of the difficulty did Bar Qappara ask, the East of his son and the West of his son? One understands “if there are from his place to his house 2’000 cubits but to his eruv more than this, he is permitted up to his house but forbidden to his eruv.” “If to his eruv be 2’000 cubits but to his house more than that, he is permitted up to his eruv but forbidden to his house”?
Mishnah
7 The people of a large town walk through all of a small town; the people of a small town walk through all of a large town. How is that? If somebody lived in a large town and put his eruv in a small town, or in a small town and put his eruv in a large town, he walks through all of it and outside of it 2’000 cubits. But Rabbi Aqiba says, he only has 2’000 cubits from the place of his eruv.
Halakhah
Paragraph. “The people of a large town walk through all of a small town,” etc. So is the Mishnah: “The people of a large town walk through all of a small town, the people of a small town do not walk through all of a large town. How is that?” There is no “how is that”. Is a city counted in the measure of 2’000? Rabbi Ḥizqiah said, Rabbi Simon in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: A city is not counted in the measure of 2’000. Rabbi Eleazar said, a city is counted in the measure of 2’000. In earlier times the people of Tiberias were walking through all its hot springs but the people of its hot springs came only to the cupola. But today for the people of Tiberias and the people of its hot springs it is one city. Rabbi Jeremiah said, “it happened that an old shepherd came and said before Rabbi, I remember the people of Magdala walking up to its hot springs, walking through its hot springs and coming up to the outer courtyard close to the bridge; and Rabbi permitted that the people of Magdala walk up to its hot springs, walking through its hot springs and come up to the outer courtyard up to the bridge. In addition, Rabbi permitted that the people of Gadara descend to their hot springs and return to Gadara but the people of the hot springs may not ascend to Gadara.” Rabbi Mana said, because of the authorities. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, it is not because of this but because we have stated “the people of a large town walk through all of a small town, the people of a small town do not walk through all of a large town.” Rabbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina: Where do they disagree? If they put their eruv in a public square. But if they put their eruv in houses even Rabbi Aqiba will agree. Rabbi Abba the son of Rabbi Pappai asked: If it was a city which made an eruv and he put his eruv in a public square, is it not as if they gave their eruv in houses? A town which was destroyed. Rabbi Eleazar says, he walks its entirety and outside 2’000 cubits. Samuel says, he only has 2’000 cubits from the place of his eruv. Rabbi Abba bar Cahana, Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Rab: If somebody deposits his eruv in a sheep-pen or a sheep-corral he walks its entirety and outside it 2’000 cubits. Are a sheep-pen or a sheep-corral not as if houses and apartments were destroyed? For a new city one measures from the houses; for an old one one measures from the wall. What is new and what is old? Rabbi Zeˋira in the name of Rav Ḥasdai: If he built houses and afterwards built a wall, that is new; if he built a wall and then built the houses, that is old. Rabbi Zeˋira said, in both cases it is new, and what is old? Anything which had dwellings and they were destroyed. Rabbi Zeˋira follows his opinion, since they disagreed: If he built nine as fore-court and one for dwelling. Rabbi Eleazar said, even if he built the tenth as dwelling it is for dwelling.
Mishnah
8 Rabbi Aqiba told them, do you not agree with me about one who puts his eruv at the mouth of a cave that he only has 2’000 cubits from the place of his eruv? They told him, when is this? If there are no dwellers in it, but if it is inhabited he walks through all of it and outside 2’000 cubits. It turns out that the interior is easier than its top. But for one who measures about whom they talked one gives 2’000 cubits even if his measure reaches its limit inside the cave.
Halakhah
Paragraph. “Rabbi Aqiba told them, do you not agree with me,” etc. Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rabbi Eleazar. The one who acquires rest in a fore-court has it easier than one who puts his eruv in a fore-court. He who acquires rest in a fore-court walks in its entirety and outside of it 2’000 cubits. He who puts his eruv in a fore-court only has 2’000 cubits from the place of his eruv. Rabbi Zeˋira asked: If one said, rest should be acquired for me in the fore-court? Rabbi Ḥanania the son of Rabbi Hillel said, this is the disagreement of Rabbi Meïr and Rabbi Jehudah. Rabbi Meïr is of the opinion, the main point of an eruv is by a loaf. If he puts his eruv in a fore-court he only has 2’000 cubits from the place of his eruv. Rabbi Jehudah said, the main point of an eruv is by his feet. If he said, rest should be acquired for me in the fore-court, he walks in its entirety and outside of it 2’000 cubits. The roof of a tower is considered part of the town. The roof of a cave is considered as fields. What, really dwellers? Or maybe just inhabitable? Since Rabbi Isaac bar Naḥman said in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina: one considers it as if filled by water and clay, this means even inhabitable. Rabbi Isaac ben Rabbi Eleazar said, this implies a city which has two exits, if between one and the other there are 3’999 cubits one walks in its entirety and outside it 2’000 cubits, 4’000 cubits he only has 2’000 cubits from the place of his eruv. Rabbi Aḥa said; Rabbi Ze`ira explained it. If he would put his sandal anywhere he could go outside and put it on; and if he would put his sandal anywhere he could go outside and put it on. What is the difference from which side he comes? From one side it is forbidden, from both sides it is permitted. Rabbi Aḥa in the name of Rav Ḥinena: If the roof of the cave was 4’000 cubits he walks in its entirety and outside it 2’000 cubits, on top of a wall it is unlimited. If the roof of the cave was 6’000 cubits he walks in its entirety and outside it 2’000 cubits by the help of nibariot. What about tops of roofs? Rabbi Yose in the name of Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rabbi Aeneas bar Pazi in the name of Rabbi Jehudah, Rabbi Aḥa brings it in the name of Samuel. On top of the roofs one carries even a kor, even two kor. Rabbi Meïr said, one carries up to two bet se’ah. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, the word of Rav disagrees with him, as we have stated there: “All roofs of a city form a single domain.” Samuel said, up to two bet se’ah. Rav said, one carries there even a kor, even two kor. It is the same for tops of roofs and tops of ships.
Mishnah
1 If someone dwells with a Non-Jew in a courtyard or with one who rejects the notion of eruv, that one makes it forbidden for him. Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says that he never forbids unless there are two Jews who mutually forbid.
Halakhah
“If somebody dwells with a Non-Jew in a courtyard,” etc. “A Non-Jew’s courtyard is like a sheep-pen or a sheep-corral.” The rabbis objected to Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob: If a Jew and an animal were living in a courtyard, would the animal not forbid? Just as an animal forbids so the Gentile forbids. Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob objected to the rabbis: If a Jew and an animal were living in a courtyard, what would the animal forbid? Just as an animal does not forbid so the Gentile does not forbid. Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rabbi Yasa in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: Practice follows Rabbi Joḥanan ben Nuri. Rabbi Hoshaia asked, for what is this needed? For what we have stated, “Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob”. But following the rabbis? The rabbis disagree with Rabbi Joḥanan ben Nuri.
Mishnah
2 Rabban Gamliel said, if happened that a Sadducee was dwelling with us in the alley in Jerusalem and my father told us be quick and bring all the vessels into the alley before he can bring out and forbid for you. Rabbi Jehudah says it in another formulation, be quick and work in the alley before he can bring out and forbid for you.
Halakhah
Paragraph. “Rabban Gamliel said, if happened that a Sadducee,” etc. Rabbi Aḥa, Rabbi Ḥinena in the name of Cahana: Practice does not follow Rabbi Jehudah. If it were not so what would we say? Rabbi Jehudah versus the Sages, practice should follow Rabbi Jehudah? But since Rabbi Jacob bar Idi said in the name of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi, practice follows the lenient opinion in Eruvin, and following Rabbi Naḥman bar Isaac in the name of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi, practice follows Rabbi Joḥanan ben Nuri, and we asked about it, did not Rabbi Jacob bar Idi say in the name of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi, practice follows the lenient opinion in Eruvin, and did not Rabbi Isaac bar Naḥman say in the name of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi, practice follows Rabbi Joḥanan ben Nuri? We asked about it, we would think to say that this refers to an individual versus an individual but not an individual versus the Sages. There came Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rabbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi, practice follows Rabbi Joḥanan ben Nuri even though the Sages disagree with him. Why should practice not follow Rabbi Jehudah even though the Sages disagree with him? Rabbi Jeremiah in the name of Rav: If a courtyard has two gates and an Israel and a Gentile live there; for the Israel one goes after the usual, for the Gentile one goes after the unusual. If there were two Israel and the Gentile in between them, both for Israel and Gentile one goes after the usual. If he ceded the usual domain, the unusual becomes the usual. If he rented the usual domain, the unusual becomes the usual. If the unusual made an eruv, the usual one is not permitted. A semi-convert and a semi-converted slave as well as an apostate acting in public are like Gentiles in every respect. There are Tannaïm who state: “A quaestor prohibits immediately and a troop of soldiers after thirty days.” There are Tannaïm who state: “A quaestor forbids after thirty days but a troop of soldiers never ever forbids.” He who says, a quaestor prohibits immediately, if it is routine, and a troop of soldiers after thirty days, if it is not routine. But he who says a quaestor forbids after thirty days, if he enters by permission, but a troop of soldiers never ever forbids, if they enter without permission. Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rabbi Eleazar, they disagree about ceding rights. Rabbi Meïr says, he may cede rights, but the rabbis are saying, he may not cede rights. Rabbi Meïr says, he may cede rights, and you are saying, “be quick”? Even though Rabbi Meïr says, he may cede rights, he agrees that they may lay claim to the alley beforehand. It was stated thus: Because he may cede rights like a Jew, the words of Rabbi Meïr. “Whether in error or intentionally, he forbids.” So is the baraita: he does not forbid. Rabbi Aḥa in the name of Rabbi Ḥinena: Everybody agrees that he may cede rights. Where do they disagree? To change his mind. Rabbi Meïr says he may cede his rights and retract it, but the rabbis say, he may cede his rights and cannot retract it. Rabbi Meïr says he may cede his rights and retract it, and you are saying, “be quick”? Even though Rabbi Meïr says, he may cede rights, he agrees that they may lay claim to the alley beforehand. It was stated thus: Because he may cede rights like a Jew, the words of Rabbi Meïr. “Whether in error or intentionally, he forbids.” So is the baraita: he does not forbid.
Mishnah
3 In a courtyard where one dweller forgot to make an eruv, his house is forbidden for him and them to bring anything in or take out, but theirs are permitted for them and him. If they ceded their rights to him, he is permitted but they are forbidden. If there were two they forbid one another since a single individual cedes rights and accepts rights but two may cede rights but cannot accept rights.
Halakhah
Paragraph. “In a courtyard where one dweller forgot to make an eruv,” etc. “But theirs are permitted for them and him.” Because he ceded his rights. May this be repeated cyclically? The students of Rav in the name of Rav: it may be repeated cyclically. Samuel said, it may not be repeated cyclically. The Mishnah disagrees with Samuel: “theirs are permitted for them and him.” Because he ceded his rights. But did we not state: “If they ceded their rights to him, he is permitted but they are forbidden”? He explains it that the Mishnah treats different cases. It was stated: “One who did not make an eruv cedes his rights to two who did make an eruv but two who made an eruv do not cede to one who did not make an eruv. And two who made an eruv may not cede to two who made no eruv. Also two who made no eruv may not cede to two who made no eruv. Everybody may cede his rights and accept rights except two who made no eruv who may cede rights but may not receive.” Rav Ḥasdai said, each single one of ten Israel who dwell in one house must cede his rights. Rabbi Yasa said, each single one of ten Gentiles who dwell in one house must rent out his rights. Rabbi Abba said, it happened that a Persian’s wife rented out her courtyard without informing her husband. The case came before Rabbi Samuel and he declared it legal. They wanted to say, even his servant and farm-hand. Practice: An Israel cedes and the Gentile rents out. Then why should the Gentile not cede? He might change his mind. Then even if he rented out he might change his mind! From then on he would use it in robbery. How little? Should it come as what Rabbi Yasa said in the name of Rabbi Mana bar Tanḥum, Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: real estate cannot be acquired with less than a peruṭa’s worth? The word of Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa implies even a walnut, even a date. When Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa went to a hostelry, when it was possible for him to put it in order, he did it. Otherwise he would spread out his clothing. He would put his staff at one place, his sandals at another, his wallet at another. Rabbi Mattaniah said, this you are saying if the hostel keeper was a Gentile. But if the hostel keeper was an Israel, he is not suspected to carry.
Mishnah
4 When may one start giving away rights? The House of Shammai say, as long as it is daylight, but the House of Hillel say, when it gets dark. If somebody gave away his rights and then brought out, whether in error or intentionally, he forbids, the words of Rabbi Meïr. Rabbi Jehudah says, intentionally he forbids, in error he does not forbid.
Halakhah
“When may one start giving away rights? The House of Shammai say,” etc. “When may one start giving away rights?” Is the Mishnah so: “When may one start ceding rights? The House of Shammai say as long as it is daylight, but the House of Hillel say, when it gets dark”? So is the Mishnah: The House of Hillel say, when it gets dark; because otherwise it would be of the leniencies of the House of Shammai and the strictures of the House of Hillel. “If somebody gave away his rights and then brought out.” So is the Mishnah: If somebody ceded his rights, “whether in error or intentionally, he forbids.” So is the Mishnah: He does not forbid. It was stated: “If two people were partners in a courtyard and one of them died, and the house fell as inheritance to an outside person. If before it became dark, this makes it forbidden; after dark it is not forbidden.” Rabbi Aḥa in the name of Rabbi Ḥinena: This is the House of Shammai’s, for the House of Shammai say, one may not cede rights after dark, but the House of Hillel say, one may cede rights after dark. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, since he dies there is no greater cession of rights than this. “If an outside person owned a house in the courtyard with them when he died and the house fell as inheritance to a dweller in the courtyard. If before it became dark, this makes it forbidden; after dark it is not forbidden.” Still this is the House of Shammai’s, for the House of Shammai say, one may not cede rights after dark, but the House of Hillel say, one may cede rights after dark. May one cede rights after dark? Rabbi Ḥiyya, Rabbi Yasa, Rabbi Immi went up to Ḥammat Gader. They asked Rabbi Ḥama bar Joseph and he permitted. Rabbi Joḥanan heard them and said, you did the correct thing. Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish heard it and said, you acted incorrectly. Do they disagree? Rabbi Zeˋira said, they did not disagree. He who said, you did the correct thing, that you leased. But he who said, you acted incorrectly, that you moved. Rabbi Abba said, they disagree. He who said, you did the correct thing, that you leased and moved. But he who said, you acted incorrectly, that you leased and that you moved. Rabbi Abba asked, is it the same in the matter of partitions? How is this? If there were two and they established one eruv, and a Gentile came and added; the Sabbath already had started in prohibition. If there were three but they established two eruvim and a Gentile came and opened; the Sabbath already had started in permission. The strength of Rabbi Abba is from the following: Any Sabbath which started in permission is permitted, in prohibition is prohibited, except one who cedes rights; and he would say, except one who cedes or leases. May one lease rights from the owner of a hostelry? Rabbi Ḥinena and Rabbi Jonathan went to Ḥammat Gader. They said, we shall wait until the Elders of the South arrive here. There came Rabbi Peres Nathan the Southerner; they asked him and he permitted. Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish heard it and said, since the Gentile may remove us, we did not do anything. Simeon bar Abba said, Rabbi Joḥanan asked, then our houses are not ours? Rabbi Justus ben Rabbi Simon in the name of Rabbi Boethos: Our houses are not ours, to dwell with us; but they cannot force us to leave; but in a hostelry they remove us.
Mishnah
5 If the owner of a house participated with several neighbors with wine, they do not need to make an eruv. If with wine with one but oil with the other they need to make an eruv. Rabbi Simeon says neither of them has to make an eruv.
Halakhah
Paragraph. “If the owner of a house participated with several neighbors,” etc. Rabbi Abba in the name of Rabbi Jehudah: They stated this in commercial practice. Everybody with wine, since he does not care about mixing, it does not need an eruv. If with wine with one but oil with the other, since he cares about mixing, it needs an eruv. Rabbi Abba bar Cahana, Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Rav: The Mishnah refers to the case that all is in one vessel. Rabbi Zeriqan said, the reason of Rabbi Simeon is that they are used to drink οἰνόγαρον. It was stated: Rabbi Eleazar ben Thaddeus says, in every case they are forbidden until they make an eruv. Rabbi Aḥa in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rabbi Eleazar ben Thaddeus. Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name Rabbi Ze`ira: Rabbi Eleazar ben Thaddeus follows Rabbi Meïr. Which statement of Rabbi Meïr? Rabbi Mana said, Rabbi Meïr who said, by an eruv, by participation. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, Rabbi Meïr who said that one may not make an eruv for a person without his knowledge. In the opinion of Rabbi Mana, following Rabbi Ze`ira, in the opinion of Rav following Rabbi Meïr. Rabbi Ze`ira in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: In matters of eruvin and public fast-days everybody follows Rabbi Meïr. Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name Rabbi Joḥanan: Even about the reading of the Esther scroll everybody follows Rabbi Meïr.
Mishnah
6 Five groups who rested in one big hall during the Sabbath, the House of Shammai say, a separate eruv for each of them, but the House of Hillel say, one eruv for all of them; however they agree that if some of them stayed for the Sabbath in separate rooms or on a second floor that each group needs a separate eruv.
Halakhah
Paragraph. “Five groups who rested in one big hall,” etc. The big hall for them is like a courtyard for houses. If there were tents there, it is as if they were houses. Where do we hold? If the tents reach to the ceiling, everybody agrees that every group has to contribute to the eruv. If the tents do not reach to the ceiling, everybody agrees that one eruv is valid for all of them. But we must hold that the tents were ten hand-breadths high. They equally agree that if they join in dough and dishes that one eruv is valid for all of them. Rabbi Ashian asked, then even if part of them dwell in separate rooms or on upper floors? Rabbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: Two houses, one inside the other. If the inner one made an eruv, the outer one does not have to make an eruv. If the outer one made an eruv, the inner one must contribute to the eruv. Rabbi Phineas said, but in Egypt it was the other way. If he gave on the inner, the outer has to give. If he gave on the outer, the inner does not have to give. Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi: Even if the inner one did not make an eruv, the outer one does not have to make an eruv. Why? It is treated as a porter’s lodge. His statement implies that there is no porter’s lodge for a single dweller. Rav’s statement implies that there is a porter’s lodge for a single dweller, for Rabbi Abba bar Jehudah said in the name of Rav: This refers to a porter’s lodge of a single dweller. But for a porter’s lodge of multiple dwellers it is an eruv, and one who dwells there forbids him. Rabbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: If there are two people, one is entitled, the other one is not entitled. If the one entitled made an eruv, the one not entitled is permitted. If the one not entitled made an eruv, the one entitled is not permitted.
Mishnah
7 Brothers sharing property who were eating at their father’s table but sleeping in their own houses need an eruv for each of them. Therefore if one of them forgot and did not make an eruv he is deemed to have ceded his rights. When? If they all bring their eruvin to one place but if the eruv came to them, or there were no other dwellers with them, they do not need an eruv.
Halakhah
Paragraph. “Brothers sharing property who were eating at their father’s table,” etc. Where is the main dwelling? Rabbi Jonah said, Rav and Samuel disagreed. One said, at the place of their bread, but the other said, at the place of sleeping. We did not know who said what but since Samuel said, higher than ten hand-breadths is rabbinically forbidden, he must say, at the place of their bread. The Mishnah disagrees with Samuel, “Brothers who were eating”. Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Rav: The Mishnah is if they are sustained by their father. In any case, are they not partners in what they are eating? Rabbi Abba said, Rabbi Samuel explained to me that their father gives them property rights only for what they are eating. Then even if the eruv does not come to them? They treated it as a house where they deposited the eruv. Samuel said, he and his sons and the people of his house make an eruv with one loaf. Does he disagree? There he says, at the place of their bread, and here he says so? He explains it if two persons were partners in it. This is similar to what Rabbi Aḥawa bar Rabbi Ze`ira said, one may make an eruv with half a loaf. But we have stated: “Even if it was baked from a se’ah and was sliced one may not use it for eruv”, and you are saying so? He explains it if two persons were partners in it. A house where they deposited the eruv. The mother of Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa had died when Rabbi Yasa said to Rabbi Abbahu, state it, and he stated: The House of Shammai forbid and the House of Hillel permit. Rabbi Hamnuna said, the house in which the eruv is deposited does not need anything. Rabbi Ḥasdai said, he is made like a partner. Rabbi Hamnuna told him, the words of the rabbis do not let you, as they disagreed: An alley in which on one side dwelt a Gentile and on the other a Jew, Rav Ḥuna in the name of Rav: even if they made an eruv through doors the Gentile prohibits it for them. Abba bar Ḥuna in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan, even if they made the eruv through windows the Gentile does not prohibit for them. If you are saying that he is like a partner, he should forbid. Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rabbi Yasa in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: If the people of the alley deposited the eruv in two places, if because the space was not enough, it is permitted, if in order to split the eruv it is forbidden. Rabbi Yose made light of a person who said, this is a large ring. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun recited the benediction of Sabbath nights over it because it was used for a commandment. There, we did state: “One puts an eruv in an old house, for communal peace”. Rabbi Abun said, the Mishnah speaks of a prior dweller.
Mishnah
8 Five courtyards were open to one another and open to an alley. If they made eruvin in the courtyards but did not participate in the alley, they are permitted in the courtyards and forbidden the alley, but if they participated in the alley the are permitted both here and there. If they made eruvin for the courtyards and participated in the alley and one of the dwellers in a courtyard forgot and did not make an eruv all parties are permitted; if he dwelt in the alley and did not participate, they are permitted in the courtyards but forbidden in the alley since the relationship of alley to courtyards is like the one of courtyards to houses.
Halakhah
Paragraph. “If five courtyards were open to one another,” etc. “But forbidden in the alley since the relationship of alley to courtyards is like the one of courtyards to houses”. But if they were open to one another but not open to the alley they would be forbidden even if they made an eruv. Rabbi Yasa said, this is Rabbi Aqiba’s, since Rabbi Aqiba said, a right of access prohibits. “If the courtyards made eruvin but did not participate in the alley.” The Mishnah is Rabbi Meïr’s since Rabbi Meïr said, by an eruv and by participation. Everybody follows Rabbi Meïr. Rabbi Ze`ira in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: Even about the reading of the Esther scroll everybody follows Rabbi Meïr. In matters of eruvin and public fast-days everybody follows Rabbi Meïr. Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name Rabbi Joḥanan and in the name of Rabbi Eleazar: Even though Rabbi Meïr says that he may cede rights he agrees that if one of them forgot and did not contribute to the eruv, that he may rely on his participation. Who holds “by an eruv and by participation,” not Rabbi Meïr? Since Rabbi Meïr said, by an eruv and by participation. He told him, why do you make us forget the practices of eruvin? Rabbi Aḥa, Rabbi Ila; it should be like one of them. For one of them said, maybe he comes to a courtyard which does not need participation. Which is a courtyard which does not need participation? That is the customary courtyard. He sees them preparing an eruv but not participating. Then he will infer to say that maybe an eruv is valid without participation? But no eruv is valid without participation. And the other one will say, maybe he comes to a courtyard which already participated. He sees them preparing an eruv but not participating. Then he will neither make an eruv nor participate. It is obvious that “one makes eruv for courtyards and participates in alleys. If one makes eruv for courtyards, if they want to participate in the alley they may not participate. But if they participated in an alley, if they want to make it eruv they may do so.” And it was stated: “One makes eruv and participates simultaneously, the words of Rabbi Meïr. But the Sages say, one makes eruv for courtyards or participates in alleys.” If they made eruv for the courtyards, they are permitted in the courtyards and forbidden in the alley. But if they participated in the alley they are permitted here and there. He told them, also you will cause the rules of eruv to be forgotten among us, for the relationship of alley to courtyards is like the one of courtyards to houses. How many courtyards must be in an alley? Rav and Samuel both say no less than two. Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: Even a courtyard on one side and a house on the other, a house on one side and a store on the other. Rav Naḥman bar Jacob asked: An alley has no less than two courtyards, does a courtyard have no less than two houses? An alley whose length and width are equal is not permitted by lath or beam but by planks like a courtyard. Samuel asked Rav, by how much must their length exceed their width? He told him, anything. The dwellers in the Land of Israel make them square. Rabbi Yasa said, when I still was there I heard the voice of Rav Jehudah asking Samuel, if somebody put aside his šeqel and died? He told him, it should be used for voluntary gifts. The excess of his tenth of an epha, Rabbi Joḥanan said, he should bring it to the Dead Sea; Rabbi Eleazar said, it should be used for voluntary gifts. They asked before him: May one cede rights from courtyard to courtyard? He told them, one may cede rights from courtyard to courtyard. They asked before Rabbi Yasa: Since you say about implements which were resting anywhere in the courtyard, one may move them in the entire courtyard, similarly concerning implements which were resting anywhere in a dead-end street, may one move them in the entire dead-end street? They asked him in Šabbat and he did not answer since Rabbi Yasa said, each matter only at its place. When they came to Eruvin he told them in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: one may move implements which were resting anywhere in a dead-end street in the entire dead-end street. Rav said, one may move them only four cubits. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, Rav is consistent and Rabbi Johanan is consistent. Since Rabbi Joḥanan says that a beam permits without participation, it is he who says that one may move in the entire dead-end street. Since Rav said that a beam does not permit without participation, it is he who says that one may move it only within four cubits. In Rabbi Joḥanan’s opinion, why does one participate in the entire dead-end street? Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, to make all domains as one. It is obvious that one may rely on participation in alleys. May one rely on participation in courtyards? Both Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa and Rabbi Ze`ira, one in the name of Mar Uqban, the other in the name of Rav Naḥman bar Jehudah: One may rely on participation in courtyards in an emergency on the first Sabbath. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun in the name of Rav Jehudah: For example those of Bar Delaiah who do not insist on their small change. Rabbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: Even not like those of Bar Delaiah who do not insist on their small change. It was stated: It happened that they were assembled for a meal in the open courtyard when the Sabbath turned holy. The case came before Samuel who said, since they started eating the dish when it still was daytime it is permitted. This implies even assembled for a meal in the open courtyard. This implies, even if they did not make an eruv. This implies, even if they did not intend to. This implies that two domains may not use one domain. This implies, one may rely on participation in courtyards in an emergency. It is obvious that an eruv needs a house. Should a participation need a house? Rabbi Aḥa in the name of Rav: One may put it either in the airspace of a courtyard or the airspace of the alley. The word of Rav implies that an eruv needs a house. The word of Samuel implies that participation needs a house. A baraita of Samuel disagrees with him: Participation may be put into the porter’s lodge. Rabbi Abun bar Ḥiyya, Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: one may put it either in the airspace of a courtyard or the airspace of the alley.
Mishnah
9 Two courtyards, one inside the other. If for the inner one they made an eruv but not the outer one, the inner one is permitted and the outer one forbidden. If the outer one but not the inner one, both are forbidden. If both made separate eruvin, both are permitted separately; Rabbi Aqiba forbids the outer one since the right of access makes it forbidden but the Sages say the right of access does not make it forbidden.
Halakhah
Paragraph. “Two courtyards, one inside the other,” etc. Rabbi Yose said, this is Rabbi Aqiba’s since Rabbi Aqiba said, the right of access makes it forbidden. Rabbi La said in the name of Rabbi Yannai, forbidden right of access makes it forbidden.
Mishnah
10 If one of the outer courtyard forgot and did not make the eruv, the inner one is permitted and the outer one forbidden. If of the inner one, both are forbidden. If they deposited they eruvin at one place and one of them forgot, whether from the inner or the outer one, both are forbidden but if they belonged to single individuals they do not have to make an eruv.
Halakhah
Paragraph. “If one of the outer courtyard forgot,” etc. If one of the outer courtyard forgot and did not make the eruv, the outer one is forbidden since they do not have an eruv; the inner one is forbidden because they put their eruv at a forbidden place. If one of the inner courtyard forgot and did not make the eruv, the inner one is forbidden since they do not have an eruv; the outer one is forbidden because they put their eruv at a forbidden place, since the right of access makes it forbidden. “If one of the outer courtyard forgot and did not make the eruv;” one understands that the outer one is forbidden because they have no eruv. Why the inner one? Because they put their eruv at a forbidden place. But if they did not put their eruv at a forbidden place? But because the right of access makes it forbidden. There is no right of access which makes it forbidden! Rabbi Yasa said, because they put it at one place they all were made one domain. Rav Ḥuna in the name of Rav: There is no rule of enclosure for a Gentile; there is no rule of stone partitions for a Gentile. There is no rule of enclosure for a Gentile; for if he dwelt on an upper floor you take him down to forbid. There is no rule of stone partitions for a Gentile for if he dwelt in the inner courtyard you would take him out to forbid. Rabbi La in the name of Rabbi Eleazar: There is a rule of enclosure for a Gentile, for if an Israel and a Gentile were dwelling in the inner courtyard he never forbids unless there be two Israel. Rabbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: He who has a stone partition inside his house ten hand-breadths high, if an Israel he does not forbid, if a Gentile he forbids. The argument of Rabbi Abba seems inverted. There Rabbi Abba said, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: If a wall was surrounded by ladders on both sides one makes two eruvin but not one eruv. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, there because of the ladders they have the status of doors, but here from the upper floors one is used to descend, from the lower one is not used to ascend.
Mishnah
1 If a window between two courtyards is four-by-four hand-breadths within ten hand-breadths, one makes two eruvin but if they wish they make one eruv. If less than four-by-four hand-breadths or higher than ten hand-breadths, one makes two eruvin and cannot make one eruv.
Halakhah
“If a window between two courtyards,” etc. Lattice work diminishes it for the laws of Sabbath, but it does not diminish for the laws of presumed possession. Straw and provender do not diminish in it; pebbles and provender do diminish in it. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, if grasses grew in it, they do not diminish it. They asked before Rabbi Abba: Concerning what you are saying about a window between two courtyards, is it the same for a window between two houses? He told them, yes. Is it the same for a window between two roofs? He told them, yes. May one make an eruv across skylights? Rabbi Abba Mari said, it is a disagreement between Rav and Samuel, as we have stated there: “All roofs of a city are one domain.” Samuel said, up to two bet se’ah; Rav said, one may move inside them even a kor, even two kor. Not only that the entire four-by-four hand-breadths must be within ten hand-breadths but even if part of four-by-four hand-breadths are within ten hand-breadthsit is as if all four-by-four hand-breadths were within ten hand-breadths. If the circumference was 96 hand-breadths, if only the most minute amount was within ten hand-breadths it is as if all of four-by-four hand-breadths were within ten hand-breadths. If it was round of circumference 90, etc. May one reduce using utensils? Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Ashi said, one may reduce using utensils. Rabbi Jonah, Rabbi Isaac bar Ṭevlai: Rabbi Joḥanan said, one may not use utensils. There, they said, it is a disagreement between the Elder Rabbi Ḥiyya and Rabbi Ismael ben Rabbi Yose. One said, it is forbidden; but one said, it is permitted. He who said that it is forbidden, maybe he would forget and move it. Rabbi Joḥanan bar Marius instructed to cover it with a heap of sand. It was stated: “One may use anything to reduce, stones, bricks, a Tyrian or an Egyptian ladder if it was fastened.” Rabbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: Even if it was not fastened. But was it not stated “if it was fastened”? Rabbi Abba said, if it was dedicated for this purpose. Rabbi La instructed following this Tanna, only if it was fastened. Both Rabbi Jonah and Rabbi Yose, one in the name of Mar Uqban, and one in the name of Rav Naḥman bar Jacob: It is necessary that between two steps there be less than three hand-breadths and each be four hand-breadths wide; the posts complement the four. Yasa said, a block in which he carved steps reduces. In any case, the posts do not complement ten; it is like a high step. Rabbi Yasa in the name of Rabbi Abun bar Cahana: It must be stretched four hand-breadths from the wall as separate place. Rabbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rabbi Abun bar Cahana: The step which reduces from ten must be stretched four hand-breadths from the wall as a separate place. Rabbi Jacob the Southerner asked: If one brought a board of seven hand-breadths and raised it less than three from the ground, is it permitted? There you are saying, everything less than three handbreadths is considered closed, and here you should be saying, everything less than four handbreadths is considered closed. If you want to object, object to the following: If one brought a wall of slightly more than four hand-breadths and raised it less than two hand-breadths from the ground, should it come following what Rabbi Joḥanan said, what is standing and empty space combine for four hand-breadths, on condition that what is standing be more than the empty space?
Mishnah
2 If a wall between two courtyards is ten hand-breadths high and four wide, one makes two eruvin and cannot make one eruv. If produce was lying on top of it, both partiess may climb up and eat them; only they may not take them down. If a wall was torn down up to ten cubits, one makes two eruvin but if they wish they make one eruv. More than this, one makes one eruv but may not make two.
Halakhah
Paragraph. “If a wall between two courtyards,” etc. Why does it have to be four hand-breadths wide? Even if it is not four hand-breadths wide? Because of what is stated later: “both sides may climb up and eat them.” If it is not four hand-breadths wide, Rabbi Abba in the name of Rav: it is forbidden for both sides. Rabbi Ze`ira in the name of Rav: it is permitted for both sides. The argument of Rabbi Abba seems inverted. There Rabbi Abba said, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: If he threw it and it came to rest on top of a partition he is liable. And here, he says so? There one considers it as if filled with dust and pebbles. Here, what do you have? You should know this since Rabbi Aḥa, Rabbi Ḥinena said in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: Ledges and walls high ten hand-breadths and wide four are permitted for both sides, on condition that he may not exchange. Rabbi Joḥanan asked. The argument of Rabbi Abba seems inverted. There Rabbi Abba said, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: If he threw it and it came to rest on top of a partition he is liable. And here, he says so? You are saying there, one considers it as if filled with dust and pebbles; here it is the same. We heard about partitions in a private domain, we heard about partitions in a public domain. Rabbi Abba, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: If a wall is surrounded by ladders on both sides, one makes two eruvin and may not make one eruv. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Bun said, since they are not at the same place, are they like doors? It was stated: The raising of a ramp is one cubit when he progresses three except for the ramp of the altar which collects ten hand-breadths for three and one third fingers, since the altar was ten cubits high and its ramp thirty-two. If one made a bench along the entire wall which is four hand-breadths wide one makes two eruvin and may not make one; with four cubits one makes one eruv and may not make two. That is if it is large but if it is small by most of it. What is large and what is small? Any where most of it is at least ten, by ten; therefore less than ten by most of it. That is meant in the middle, but not from the side. What is on the side and what is in the middle? If what is standing is four hand-breadths it is in the middle, otherwise it is on the side.
Mishnah
3 If a ditch between two courtyards is ten hand-breadths deep and four wide, one makes two eruvin but cannot make one eruv even if it is full of straw or provender. If it is full of dust or pebbles, one makes one eruv but cannot make two eruvin.
Halakhah
Paragraph. Therefore straw to be disregarded cannot be disregarded. Does the Mishnah not follow Rabbi Yose, since Rabbi Yose said, straw said to be disregarded is disregarded? Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun in the name of Rav Ḥisda: It is everybody’s opinion. What Rabbi Yose said, if he mixed it with dust. “There is straw which is treated like dust and dust which is treated like straw. Straw not to be removed is like dust; dust to be removed is like straw.” In the House of Rabbi Yannai they said: If he covered it with mats it is disregarded. Come and see: If he filled it with mats it is not disregarded, if he covered it with mats it is disregarded. If he filled it with branches of date palms it is problematic. Rabbi Zeriqan, Rabbi Immi, in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish: Even thin sheets.
Mishnah
4 If one put a plank of any kind over it which is four hand-breadths wide, or two balconies one opposite the other, one makes two eruvin but if they wish they make one eruv. Less than this, one makes two eruvin but cannot make one eruv.
Halakhah
Paragraph. Some state “one makes two eruvin and cannot make one eruv.” Some state, “one makes one eruv and cannot make two eruvin.” For him who says “one makes two eruvin and cannot make one eruv”, “less than this” refers to the plank. For him who says, “one makes one eruv and cannot make two eruvin,” “less than this” refers to the space.
Mishnah
5 If a straw-heap between two courtyards is ten hand-breadths high, one makes two eruvin but cannot make one eruv. Each feeds from his side. If the straw became less than ten hand-breadths high, one makes one eruv but cannot make two eruvin.
Halakhah
Paragraph. Rabbi Eleazar said, so is the Mishnah: “Each fills his pail and feeds from his side.” Rabbi Ḥaggai said, when we were sitting before Menaḥem we used to say, lest you say that he is not like one taking down tents but one who supports tents, for if the straw was flattened he supports it by his pail. Rav Hoshaia asked: What if he used a sheet and supported it by a chair? It is meant here temporarily, but it is meant there for permanence. It was stated: “A straw heap between two courtyards. Each one opens his door and feeds. If the straw was less than ten hand-breadths, both are forbidden until they make an eruv. Therefore if one of them wants to block his door and cede his rights, he is forbidden but his neighbor is permitted.” And so it is with a cistern between two courtyards. This implies that one may not cede from courtyard to courtyard. This implies, even if they did not make an eruv. This implies, even if they did not intend to. This implies that two domains may not use one domain. This implies, if each of them uses his door, both are forbidden. And so it is with a house between two courtyards, not following Rabbi Meïr, who said that a locked house is forbidden.
Mishnah
6 How may one participate in an alley? One puts down an amphora and says, this shall be for all dwellers in the alley, and transfers rights through his adult son or daughter or his male or female Hebrew slave or through his wife. But he cannot transfer rights through his minor son or daughter or his Canaanite male or female slave because their hand is like his own.
Halakhah
Paragraph. It was stated: He cannot transfer rights to the amphora which he has in the cellar. Rav Hoshaia said, lest he forget and drink from it. Where do we hold? If she is an adult, she becomes free by the signs of puberty. If she is underage, may an underage person transfer rights? Rabbi Yudan bar Shalom said before Rabbi Yose: Explain it following him who said that a minor may give heave. He answered him, but even according to him who says that a minor cannot give heave, the minor can acquire rights. This is acceptable following the opinion of the rabbis there. There, they are saying in the name of Rav Naḥman bar Jacob: One to whom one gives a nut and he throws it away, a pebble and he keeps it, what one finds in his hand is as if found on a garbage heap; a nut and he keeps it, a pebble and he throws it away, what one robs from him is robbery because of the ways of peace; a nut or a pebble and he takes, hides them, and produces them later, what is robbed from him is total robbery. He can acquire for himself but not for others. Rav Huna said, just as he can acquire for himself so he can acquire for others. Everybody agrees that his gift is not a gift, since it is written, if a man give, a man’s gift is a gift, the gift of a minor is no gift, the words of the Sages. Rabbi Jehudah ben Pazi in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan, Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: Robbing from him is never clear robbery unless he grew two pubic hairs. Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: That which you say is to make one pay by a law suit; but to have to bring a sacrifice for a false oath everybody agrees only after he grew two pubic hairs. But following to the rabbis here, Rabbi Yose asked that even for himself he should not be able to acquire since it is written to his neighbor, only if he be like his neighbor. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun in the name of Rabbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac: They came to it by the rules of school children as we have stated: “School children’s buying is buying and their selling is selling, for movables.” But did we not state: “But he cannot transfer rights through his minor son or daughter or his Canaanite male or female slave because their hand is like his hand.” The rabbis of Caesarea say, here a minor with knowledge, there a minor without knowledge. There, we have stated: “If somebody borrows a cow and the lender sent her to him through his son, his slave, or his agent, in case it died he is not liable.” Does this not say that a slave is able to transfer rights from his master to another person? Rabbi Eleazar said, explain it about a Hebrew slave. Rabbi Joḥanan said, you can even explain it for a Canaanite slave, it he told him, open the gate for her and she will go by herself, as we have stated: If he led her, drew her, called her and she followed him, he is required to pay as a borrower. Rabbi Ze`ira understood it from here: “But he cannot make them acquire through his minor son or daughter or his Canaanite male or female slave, because their hand is not like his hand.” Does this not imply that a slave is not able to transfer rights from his master to another person? Explain it following Rabbi Meïr since Rabbi Meïr makes the hand of the slave the hand of his master. But did we not state “his wife”? Rabbi Meïr holds that the hand of the wife is the hand of her husband! Rabbi Ḥananiah said in the name of Rabbi Phineas, explain it following the Tanna who stated: “His wife cannot redeem Second Tithe for him. Rabbi Simeon ben Eleazar says in the name of Rabbi Meïr, his wife can redeem Second Tithe for him.” For that Tanna, Rabbi Meïr makes the hand of the slave the hand of his master but not the hand of the wife the hand of her husband!
Mishnah
7 If the food became less he adds, transfers rights, but does not have to notify. If dwellers are added he adds, transfers rights, and has to notify.
Halakhah
Paragraph. Why does he notify? By practice. Does this not imply that he does not transfers rights to the food proper? Rabbi Ḥanina said, explain it if rats dragged it away.
Mishnah
8 If a straw-heap between two courtyards is ten hand-breadths high, one makes two eruvin but cannot make one eruv. Each feeds from his side. If the straw became less than ten hand-breadths high, one makes one eruv but cannot make two eruvin.
Halakhah
Paragraph. Rav said, many are seventeen, few are sixteen. Rabbi Joḥanan said, any if it were distributed there would be the volume of a dried fig for everybody are many, otherwise they are few. Paragraph. They wanted to say that they do not disagree; what Rav said follows Rabbi Meïr, and he who follows Rabbi Joḥanan follows Rabbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa. What are remains of an eruv? Similar to what Rabbi Yose said in the name of Rabbi Hoshaia: A hyssop with which he sprinkled once is qualified; more that that are remains. And here it is the same.
Mishnah
9 Rabbi Yose said, when has this been said? When one starts an eruv. But remains of an eruv are valid in any quantity. They said to make eruv for courtyards only lest the children forget.
Halakhah
Paragraph. Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said, why does one make eruv of courtyards? Because of peaceful relations. It happened that a woman was hostile to another and sent her her eruv through her son. She took him, embraced him, and kissed him. He went and told it before his mother. She said, obviously she loves me and I did not know it. As a consequence they made peace. That is what is written its ways are ways of pleasantness and all its paths peace.
Mishnah
10 Anything and participation except water and salt, the words of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Joshua says, an eruv is a loaf of bread. Even if a se’ah was baked but is sliced one may not use it for eruv; a loaf the size of an as which is complete may be used for eruv. A person may give an obolus to a grocer or a baker to acquire part in his eruv, the words of Rabbi Eliezer. But the Sages say, his money did not acquire for him. They agree for anybody else that his money does acquire for him, because one makes an eruv for a person only with his agreement. Rabbi Jehudah explained, when has this been said? For eruv of domains, but eruvin of courtyards one makes with or without his agreement since one may give benefits to a person in his absence but impose obligations on him only in his presence.
Halakhah
Paragraph. Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: This implies that money does not transfer title as word of the Torah. Then even if he comes to the grocer? There is a difference, maybe he would forget and sell it. Rabbi Aḥa in the name of Rabbi Ḥinena: My father did not say so but: “But the Sages say, his money did not acquire for him.” This implies that money does transfer title as word from the Torah. “They agree for anybody else that his money does acquire for him,” because the grocer will transfer title through a third person. “Because one makes an eruv for a person only with his agreement;” the Mishnah is Rabbi Meïr’s since Rabbi Meïr said, by an eruv, by participation. Rabbi Ze`ira in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: In matters of eruvin and public fast-days everybody follows Rabbi Meïr. Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: Even about the reading of the Esther scroll everybody follows Rabbi Meïr. Rabbi Isaac Ḥaqula in the name of Rebbu Jehudah the Prince: One forcibly makes an eruv for a person. It was stated thus: “The dwellers in an alley force one another to install lath or beam,” and it was stated: If they told him to make an eruv and he does not object. If he objects does one force him? Rabbi Yudan said, the baraita is Rabbi Meïr’s. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, one may explain it according to everybody if he is a Sadducee. But was it not stated: “If one forgot and did not make an eruv, whether in error or intentionally he forbids, the words of Rabbi Meïr. Rabbi Jehudah says intentionally he forbids, in error he does not forbid.” Intentionally he forbids; may one not make eruv for him forcibly? But it must be a fine. Then he should be forbidden but everybody else permitted. Since they could make an eruv and did not make it one fines him. But does Rabbi Meïr not hold that one may make something in favor of another person without his knowledge, only one may not impose a disadvantage on him? Rabbi Meïr holds that this is not a favor; a person does not want that a neighbor may come to his house except on his invitation. Rabbi Abba the son of Rabbi Pappai in the name of Rabbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina: It happened that a woman made an eruv for her mother-in-law without her knowledge. The case came before Rabbi Ismael who wanted to forbid. Rabbi Ḥiyya told him, I heard from your father that if you can be lenient in eruvin you should be lenient.
Mishnah
1 How does one participate for domains? One puts down an amphora and says, this is for all people of my town who intend to go to a house of mourning or to a wedding feast. Anybody who accepted when it still was daytime is permitted, after dark it is prohibited since one may not make an eruv after dark.
Halakhah
“How does one participate for domains,” etc. One does not state “one transfers rights.” Why does one not state “one transfers rights”? Samuel said, there we stated that “one transfers rights,” one has to transfer rights; but here, where we did not state “one transfers rights”, one does not have to transfer rights. Rabbi Joḥanan said, it is a matter of a conclusion de minore ad maius. If there, where eruvin of courtyards are a rabbinic institution you are saying that one has to transfer rights, not so much more eruvin of domains which are words of the Torah? Rav follows Rabbi Joḥanan, and Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, to treat all domains equally.
Mishnah
2 What is its measure? Food for two meals for everybody, food for weekday but not the Sabbath, the words of Rabbi Meïr; Rabbi Jehudah says for Sabbath but not for weekday. Both of them intended to be lenient. Rabbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa says, a loaf for a dupondius if four seah are a tetradrachma. Rabbi Simeon says, two thirds of a loaf if three are made from a qab; half of this for the leprous house, and half of this half bring impurity to a body.
Halakhah
Paragraph. Rabbi Meïr says, on a weekday, when he has nothing to eat, he eats little bread. On the Sabbath, when he has something to eat, he eats a lot of bread. Rabbi Jehudah says, on a weekday, when he has nothing to eat, he eats a lot of bread. On the Sabbath, when he has something to eat, he eats little bread. It was stated: Their words are close one to another. Come and see: One makes a loaf the volume of twelve eggs, the other makes a loaf of eight, and you are saying so? Rav Huna said, deduct a third for expenses. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun gave to the bakers according to the statement of Rav Huna, but only for these measures.
Mishnah
3 If people of a courtyard and those on a balcony forgot and did not make an eruv, anything higher than ten hand-breadths belongs to the balcony, less than this to the courtyard. The enclosure of a cistern or a rock ten hand-breadths high belong to the balcony, less than this to the courtyard. When has this been said? If it is close. But if it is far away even if it is ten hand-breadths high it belongs to the courtyard. What is close? Any which is not four hand-breadths distant.
Halakhah
Paragraph. Is it not of the lower ones? Rabbi Yudan said, this implies that if Ruben’s ruin stands in Simeon’s domain and the latter uses it, it is as if it were his. The following is obvious. If both of them are by a door, both of them are forbidden the house between two courtyards. For one of them by throwing and for one by lowering. Samuel says, lowering is permitted since it is ordinary but throwing is forbidden since it is not ordinary. Rav said, it did not do anything. Our Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “anything higher than ten hand-breadths belongs to the balcony, less than this to the courtyard.” The Mishnah refers to the case that neither one uses by throwing nor by lowering; within three hand-breadths of the upper one which is more than ten hand-breadths from the lower one. Where do Rav and Samuel disagree? If it is equal. If there was a ruin there, Rabbi Joḥanan says, one gives the ruin to its owner. That is in case he uses the ruin through his door. If he uses the ruin through a window? Rabbi Aḥa in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan, even in this case one gives the ruin to its owner. Rabbi Eleazar ben Rabbi Simeon in the name of Rabbi Hoshaia: If there were three; each one uses a ruin through his door and the middle space is forbidden. When is this? If the middle space belonged to both of them. But if the middle space belonged to a person from the market, one uses one property and the other one uses one property and a second one. Rabbi Joḥanan said, what is standing and the hollow combine together to four, but only if what is standing is more than the hollow. Rabbi Ze`ira asked, only if what is standing on each side is more? Rabbi Yose said, it is obvious for Rabbi Zeˋira that what is standing on one side only does not combine; it is obvious for him that one side must be more. He only questions even the second standing part. Rabbi Jeremiah in the name of Rabbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: the Mishnah is from three to four hand-breadths. Less than three even more than ten cubits is permitted, four even less than ten cubits is prohibited. Where do we hold? From three to four. If there is no cover; but if there is a cover it belongs to those on the ground floor. Rabbi said, is there is no hole there. But if there is a hole one uses it through the hole.
Mishnah
4 If one deposits his eruv in a porter’s lodge, a porch, or a balcony, it is no eruv and any person who might dwell there does not forbid him. In a storage room for straw, in a cowshed, in a storage room for wood, or a general storage area, it is an eruv and any person who might dwell there does forbid him. Rabbi Jehusah says, if the householder retains rights of use he does not forbid him.
Halakhah
New paragraph. Rabbi Jehudah in the name of Rav: This you only say referring to a porter’s lodge of a single family dwelling. But for the porter’s lodge of the many it is an eruv and he who dwells there forbids for you. The House of Rabbi Yannai are saying, even a peg to hang his shoes on. Rabbi Abba bar Ḥinena said, even a metal plate, even a table. Rav said, but only what may be moved on the Sabbath. Rabbi Abba said, it happened that a person had a chicken coop inside another person’s house, where he could enter without asking for permission. The case came before Rav who said, since he is obligated to give them water it is as if it could be moved on the Sabbath. Rabbi Jacob in the name of Samuel: The students of Rabbi Joḥanan ascended to Akhbara and relied on the statement of Rabbi Yannai. Ḥizqiah does not say so but: Rabbi Ḥiyya, Rabbi Assi, and Rabbi Ammi ascended to Akhbara and heard from the House of Rabbi Yannai that practice follows Rabbi Jehudah.
Mishnah
5 If somebody leaves his house to stay in an other town for the Sabbath, whether he be Gentile of Jewish, he forbids, the words of Rabbi Meïr. Rabbi Jehudah says, a Gentile forbids but a Jew does not forbid since it is not Jewish to come on the Sabbath. Rabbi Simeon says, even if he left his house and went to keep the Sabbath at his daughter’s in the same town he does not forbid since already he does not think of it any more.
Halakhah
This is Rabbi Meïr’s, since Rabbi Meïr says, a locked house forbids. Could he not come by an eruv, or transgress and come? Mar Uqban in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rabbi Meïr.
Mishnah
6 From a cistern between two courtyards one may not draw water on the Sabbath unless one made for it a partition ten hand-breadths high, either below or inside its rim. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, the House of Shammai say below but the House of Hillel say above. Rabbi Jehudah says, a partition should not be more than the wall in between them.
Halakhah
Paragraph. The words of the rabbis disagree, as Rabbi Jacob said in the name of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi: Only if the partition is lowered into the water to lower a pail. Do not two different domains use the same domain? They supposed to say that no pail moves more than four hand-breadths. Rabbi Tevelai in the name of Rav: The rules of a ruin do not apply to water. If there was a ceiling, one considers it as if it went down and locked. If there was a cross-beam, one considers it as if it went down and locked. The argument of Rabbi Jehudah is inverted. There he said, “Rabbi Jehudah does not apply this to water since it has no consistency.” Rabbi Huna said, but the partition must extend into the hollow of the cistern.
Mishnah
7 From a water canal which crosses a courtyard one does not draw on the Sabbath unless one made a partition ten hand-breadths high at its entrance and exit. Rabbi Jehudah said, it happened that from the water canal of Abel one was drawing water on the instruction of Elders on the Sabbath. They told him, because it did not have the measure.
Halakhah
Paragraph. The Mishnah if it is deep ten hand-breadths and wide four hand-breadths and open on both sides. If it is open on one side one puts a beam or a lathe on that side. If it is open on both sides one puts a beam or a lathe on one side and makes the shape of a door at the other. Do not two different domains use the same domain? Explain it if there were houses on one side. The following is obvious: If it is ten deep but not four wide one may move and fill. If it was four wide but not ten deep it is obvious that one may move. May one fill? Rabbi Ḥinena said, it is permitted. Rabbi Mana said, it is forbidden. Our Mishnah disagrees with Rabbi Mana: “They told him, because it did not have the measure.” It was neither ten deep nor four wide. But if it had been ten deep but not four wide it would have been forbidden. Even if it is four wide but not ten deep it is permitted. The case happened as it happened.
Mishnah
8 From a balcony above the sea one may not draw water on the Sabbath unless one made a partition ten hand-breadths high either above or below. Similarly, two balconies one on top of the other, if they made for the upper one but not for the lower one both are forbidden until they make an eruv.
Halakhah
Paragraph. Rabbi Zeˋira, Rav Jehudah in the name of Rav: Only if the partition is lowered into the water to lower a pail. Do not two different domains use the same domain? Rav Huna said, only if the partition be within three hand-breadths of the balcony. It was stated: Rabbi Ḥanania ben Aqabia says, if a balcony protrudes over the sea, one opens the floor covering, lowers down, and fills. Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rabbi Yasa: Only if the hole is four hand-breadths long, and only if it is four hand-breadths wide, and if the walls are ten hand-breadths high. There they are saying, even if the partitions are not ten hand-breadths high it is made like a funnel. Rabbi Idi said before Rabbi Ḥiyya: One is permitted to fill but forbidden to pour out. He said to him, when we will ordain Sages, we shall ordain you with them. Rabbi Mana said, he shouted at him. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Bun said, did he not say to him that one is permitted to fill, since he fills inside his partition, but forbidden to pour out, for he pours outside of his partition? Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, Rabbi Ḥanania ben Aqabia said it only for Lake Genezareth since mountains surround it. Rabbi Eleazar asked Rabbi Joḥanan, if one threw from a circular road into public domain or from public domain into it? He said to him, in your opinion a public domain does not exist. Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish said, there is no public domain unless it be open from one end of the world to the other. The argument of Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish seems inverted since he said, there is no public domain in this world, only in the future as it is written, every valley will be lifted. A Mishnah disagrees with Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish: “What is a private domain? The paths of Bet-Gilgul. Private domain regarding the Sabbat but public domain for impurity.” Rabbi Joḥanan said, Rabbi Yose said it only for Tabernacles, but in the matter of the Sabbath even Rabbi Yose agrees. The word of Rabbi Ḥanina implies that it is even for the Sabbath, as Rabbi Ḥanina said, a ruler came to Sepphoris and they suspended quilts; Rabbi Ismael ben Rabbi Yose permitted carrying under them following his father’s argument. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun in the name of Rabbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac: Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Ḥanina comes like Rabbi Ḥanania and both disagree with Rabbi Joḥanan’s argument, as Rabbi Joḥanan said, Rabbi Jehudah, and Rabbi Yose, and Ḥanania bar Aqabia all three said the same. Rabbi Jehudah of the open bridges, Rabbi Yose that of tabernacles, Rabbi Ḥanania ben Aqabia as it was stated: Rabbi Ḥanania permitted three things, he permitted a balcony, and seaweed, and bringing bathtowels. Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Yose: This you are saying if they are using the hole. But if they are using the outside it is permitted. It was stated thus: If three balconies are one above the other it is forbidden to pass from the upper one to the lower one passing by the middle one, but one may pass from the courtyard to the roof without worry. Rabbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac says, this you mean from the inside but from the outside it is forbidden. Rabbi Zeˋira said, both inside and outside are forbidden. A baraita disagrees with Rabbi Zeˋira: “One lowers a pot with meat from a ledge which is ten hand-breadths high and four wide. If a window of four hand-breadths was in between it is forbidden since one does not pass from one domain to another through a third domain.” What does Rabbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac do with this? He explains it if equal.
Mishnah
9 If a courtyard be less that four by four cubits one may not pour water in it on the Sabbath unless one make for it a sump containing two seah below the hole, whether inside or outside; only that outside one has to cover but inside one does not have to cover. Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says, one may pour water on the Sabbath into a sewer which is covered for four cubits in the public domain, but the Sages are saying, even from a roof or a courtyard 100 cubits wide one may not pour into the sewer but one may pour onto the roof and it flows down into the sewer. Courtyard and porch combine for four cubits. Two rows of apartments, one opposite the other, one side made a sump, the other did not make a sump. Those who made a sump are permitted, those who did not make a sump are forbidden.
Halakhah
Paragraph. They estimated the place of what a person uses is two se’ah and four cubits absorb two se’ah. If the sump sprung a hole, there are Tannaïm who state that one does not have to plug; there are Tannaïm who state that one has to plug. If the sump was full, there are Tannaïm who state that one has to empty, there are Tannaïm who state that one does not have to. Rabbi Mana said, it is one Tanna. He who says that one has to plug forbids to pour out, he who says that one does not have to plug permits to pour out. Rehhi Ḥiyya bar Marius said to Rabbi Mana: So said your father Rabbi Jonah, thinking about it: If it is sloping inside, even more than ten is permitted; outside even less than ten is permitted. What we are dealing with if it is level. The Mishnah disagrees with Rabbi Joḥanan: “Courtyard and porch combine for four cubits.” He explains it if they are level. A baraita disagrees with Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish: The terrace, the roof, and the courtyard combine for four cubits. Still it is if they are level. You should know that it is so since it was stated: The house, the upper floor, the courtyard, and the porch do not combine. Is that not because they are not level? Rabbi Jeremiah said, Rabbi Meïr and Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob both said the same. Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob as we have stated: “Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says, on the Sabbath one may pour water into a sewer which is covered for four cubits in the public domain, but the Sages are saying, even from a roof or a courtyard 100 cubits wide one may not pour into the sewer.” Rabbi Meïr as it was stated: In large cities one may pour water into flows even though they are perforated, the words of Rabbi Meïr. And it was stated thus, if it was a drainpipe it is permitted; in the rainy season it is permitted; streaming spouts are forbidden and Bar Qappara stated, if it occurred at a hidden place it is permitted. This disagrees with Rav and he cannot explain it, since Rav said that everything forbidden because of a bad impression is forbidden even in the most private room.
Mishnah
1 All rooftops of a town form one domain on condition that no roof be ten hand-breadths higher or ten lower, the words of Rabbi Meïr, but the Sages say that each roof is a domain by itself. Rabbi Simeon says, not only rooftops but also courtyards and corrals are single domains for vessels which started the Sabbath in them but not for vessels which started the Sabbath in the house.
Halakhah
“All rooftops of a town form one domain,” etc. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, Rav and Samuel disagree. Samuel said, up to two bet se’ah. Rav said, one carries there even a kor, even two kor. They wanted to say, where do Rabbi Meïr and the rabbis disagree? If they made an eruv. But if they did not have to make an eruv, he explains it if all houses were the property of one person. Our Mishnah if all of them were climbing up either on a Tyrian or an Egyptian ladder. But if all were climbing up using an Egyptian ladder except for one using a Tyrian, the Tyrian becomes a door and the remaining ones are as if climbing up and climbing down. May one carry in all of it? Samuel said, he carries in all of it. Rav said, he only carries within four cubits. Our Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “If a large roof is adjacent to a small one, the large one is permitted but the small forbidden.” One understands that of the large one four cubits are permitted. But of the small one is forbidden four cubits? Is anything forbidden in four cubits? Do not Rav and Samuel say that one allows him four cubits in front of his door? Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said in Samuel’s name: If there was a door open to the roof, even then the large one is permitted since it is not completely open, and the small one is forbidden because it is completely open. “ Rabbi Meïr says, do you not agree with me that vessels which started the Sabbath in a courtyard may be moved in the courtyard? What is the difference between a roof and a courtyard? They told him, no. If you say about a courtyard, which has no dwellers under it, what can you say about a roof, which has dwellers under it? He asked them, what if the courtyard was higher than the roof? They told him, no. If you say about a courtyard where nobody knows his place, what can you say about a roof where everybody knows his place? He asked them, what if the courtyard was split by pebbles? Up to this point there was an answer.” Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, from here on they were answering him in person; they told him, no. If you say about a courtyard whose dividers rise about it, what can you say about a roof whose dividers do not rise about it? He was telling them, in fact I am equating depth and height. It was stated: “Rabbi Jehudah said, in times of persecution we were taking the scroll and climbing from courtyard to roof, from a roof to another roof, and sitting down and reading. They told him, times of persecution are no proof.” “ Rabbi said, when we were studying with Rabbi Simeon in a valley, we were taking oil and a bath towel and going from a courtyard to a roof, and from the roof to a corral, and from one corral to another corral, until we came to the corral adjacent to the spring, and descending and immersing ourselves in it.” You may say that there are four disagreements. “All rooftops of a town form one domain.” Rabbi Jehudah says, courtyard and rooftops form one domain. “Rabbi Simeon says, courtyards, rooftops, and corrals are single domains for vessels which started the Sabbath in them but not for vessels which started the Sabbath in the house”. Rabbi Joḥanan said, if they did not make an eruv. But if they made an eruv the courtyard becomes like the houses. Rabbi Zeˋira said, it is the same whether they made an eruv or they did not make an eruv. Our Mishnah disagrees with Rabbi Zeˋira: “not for vessels which started the Sabbath in the house.” If they did not make an eruv, is this necessary? It is forbidden to remove from the roof, not so much to the roof? Rabbi Abun bar Cahana said before Rabbi La: When each one made an eruv by itself; even then not for the vessels which started the Sabbath in the house. Paragraph. The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun: It follows that Samuel and Rav both disagree with the opinion of Rabbi Joḥanan, as we have stated: “All rooftops of a town form one domain.” Samuel said, up to two bet se’ah. Rav said, one carries there even a kor, even two kor.
Mishnah
2 If a large roof is adjacent to a small one, the large one is permitted but the small forbidden. If a large courtyard is open to a small one, the large one is permitted but the small forbidden since it acts as a door to the large one.
Halakhah
“If a large roof is adjacent to a small one, the large one is permitted but the small forbidden.” Our Mishnah refers to one roof only, but on another roof it is forbidden. If it is not level, but if it is level it is permitted. Our Mishnah disagrees with Samuel: “If a large courtyard is open to a small one, the large one is permitted but the small forbidden.” Should one not be able to move there up to the place of the partitions? The colleagues said before Rabbi Yose in the name of Rabbi Aḥiyya: What Samuel said, on this Sabbath itself, what the Mishnah deals with the next Sabbath. Where do we hold? If they made one eruv together, they should be permitted both on this and on the next Sabbath. If they did not make any eruv, they should be forbidden both on this and on the next Sabbath. The case happened as it happened. Rabbi Abun bar Cahana said before Rabbi La: When each of them made separate eruvin, nevertheless the large one is permitted since it is breached along its entire length and the small one is forbidden since it was not breached along its entire length.
Mishnah
3 If a courtyard is open to the public domain, anybody who brings from it into a private domain or from a private domain into it is liable, the words of Rabbi Eliezer. But the Sages say from it into the public domain and from the public domain into it one is not liable since it is like karmelit.
Halakhah
Paragraph. Rabbi Zeriqa, Rabbi Jacob bar Abun in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina: Rabbi Eleazar said this only for the place of partitions if the main parts had been removed on both sides, and only four handbreadths. Rabbi Zeˋira and Rabbi Illa both are saying, it is forbidden not at the place of partitions, but at the place of partitions even the rabbis agree. Rabbi Zeriqan said, many times I explained the Mishnah with Rabbi Jacob bar Abun and never heard this from him. They said to him, does it not happen that one person hears something which another does not hear? Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: if the main partitions had been removed on both sides, and only if it is level.
Mishnah
4 If a courtyard became open on both sides, or a house became open on both sides, or an alley whose beam or lathes were removed, they are permitted the same Sabbath but forbidden in the future, the words of Rabbi Jehudah. Rabbi Yose says, if they are permitted the same Sabbath they are permitted in the future, and if they are forbidden in the future they are forbidden this Sabbath.
Halakhah
Paragraph. Why do I need “on both sides”? Even on one side! Does this not follow Rav, as Rav said, a courtyard becomes permitted by two planks? Rabbi Samuel in the name of Rabbi Zeˋira: It is a disagreement. He who says there by one plank, here also by one plank; he who says there by two planks, here also by two planks. If it became breached in the middle it is permitted; Samuel said it is forbidden. Rabbi Zeˋira said, if that of Samuel is not what he learned, it is difficult. If one entire side was breached? Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, that is the case of the porch; if it were a porch, would it not be permitted? Rabbi Joḥanan said, Rabbi Eliezer said this only for a courtyard and an alley; but is a house like a bridge? Rav and Rabbi Joḥanan say, it is forbidden both on this Sabbath and the coming Sabbath. Rabbi Joḥanan said, costos, and hollowed squash, and alley, and convert, and vulgar, are restrictive. Costos as we have stated, “costos, and cardamon, and important spices may be bought with tithe money but do not become impure by impurity of foodstuff, the words of Rabbi Aqiba. Rabbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, if they may be bought with tithe money they become impure by impurity of foodstuff, and if they do not become impure by impurity of foodstuff they may not be bought with tithe money.” Rabbi Joḥanan said, restrictive: they become impure by impurity of foodstuff and may not be bought with tithe money. Hollowed squash as we have stated: “A hollowed squash which one immersed is water suitable for sanctification, etc.” Rabbi Joḥanan said, restrictive, one may not sanctify either at the beginning or at the end. Alley, as we have stated there, “or an alley whose beam was removed, etc.” Rabbi Joḥanan said, restrictive, it is forbidden both on this Sabbath and the coming Sabbath. Proselyte, as it was stated: If a proselyte converted while he had wines, and said, it is clear to me that no libations were made from it, if he made it by himself it is pure for him but impure for others, by others it is impure both for him and for others. Rabbi Aqiba said, if they are pure for him they should be pure for others; if impure for others they should be impure for him. Rabbi Joḥanan said, restrictive, impure for him and for others. Vulgar, as it was stated: If a vulgar person who was inducted as a fellow has food made in purity and he said, it is clear to me that it was prepared in purity, if he made it by himself it is pure for him but impure for others, by others it is impure both for him and for others. Rabbi Aqiba said, if they are pure for him they should be pure for others; if impure for others they should be impure for him. Rabbi Joḥanan said, restrictive, impure for him and for others.
Mishnah
5 If somebody builds an upper floor connecting two houses, and similarly open bridges, one carries under them, the words of Rabbi Jehudah, but the Sages forbid it. In addition, Rabbi Jehudah said that one may make an eruv for open alleys but the Sages forbid it.
Halakhah
Paragraph. Rav Huna said, no public domain is roofed. Rabbi Simeon bar Carsana said, did you not learn from the desert, and was the desert not roofed? Our Mishnah does not say so, but “and similarly open bridges, one carries under them the words of Rabbi Jehudah, but the Sages forbid it.” It only says “but the Sages forbid it;” therefore there is no liability of a purification offering. Does it need a partition? Rabbi Abba said, it needs a partition. Rabbi Yose said, it does not need a partition. The colleagues said before Rabbi Yose, does Rabbi Abba not say it correctly? As we have stated, “Rabbi Jehudah says, a partition should not be more than the wall between them.” He said to them, there, where there is a roof, it does not need a partition. But here, where there is no roof, it needs a partition, as Rav Jehudah said, if it is open to an agricultural area, but if it is open to the public domain it is forbidden if there are no partitions, but if there is a partition it is permitted.
Mishnah
1 He who finds tefillin brings them in pair by pair; Rabban Gamliel says, two by two. When has this been said? For used ones, but for new ones he is not liable. If he found them in heaps or bundles he stays there until it becomes dark and then brings them, but in times of danger he covers them and goes away.
Halakhah
““He who finds tefillin,” etc. “He who finds tefillin brings them in pair by pair;” as clothing, one on his head and one on his arm. “Rabban Gamliel says, two by two,” two on his head and two on his arm. Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Eleazar: He who puts on tefillin in the night transgresses a positive commandment. What is the reason? You shall keep this law …, from day to day; “days” not nights. But Rabbi Abbahu sat studying at night with his tefillin on his head! He put them on the side; they were like a deposit in his keeping. Some want to say, he only meant “not to put them on,” but when they were on him during daytime it would be permitted. Some want to say that the obligation is until the foot is disappearing from public places. Some want to say, let us hear it from the following: It shall be for you a sign, when you need it for a sign, but not holiday or Sabbaths that are all sign. But is it not written from day to day? You have only what Rabbi Joḥanan said: Everything that is not clear one supports from many places. Women from where? And you should teach them to your sons, but not to your daughters. Anyone who is obliged to study Torah is obliged for tefillin, women who are not obliged to study Torah are not obliged for tefillin They objected, but did not Michal, the daughter of Saul, wear tefillin, and did not the wife of Jonah make the pilgrimage to the Temple, and the Sages did not object?. Rabbi Ḥisqiah in the name of Rabbi Abbahu: Jonah’s wife was turned back, the Sages objected to Michal the daughter of Saul. They wanted to say, in the rabbi’s opinion it is not clear; in Rabban Gamliel’s opinion it is clear. Rabbi Jeremiah said in the name of Rabbi Samuel: They estimated to say, up to the place where it can be placed on the top of the head. For how many is there space? Two. Then even on weekdays? Rabbi Ḥaggai said, if he wants to put there, he puts. Rabbi Zeriqa said, Rav Hamnuna explained to me, up to the place where the baby’s brain is soft. There we have stated: “About a chicken which was stoned in Jerusalem because it had killed a person.” It saw that the skull of the baby was soft; it went and picked it. Rabbi Yose said, so is the Mishnah: Only by pairs. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun in the name of Rabbi Aḥa: Even by pairs. They wanted to say, in the rabbi’s opinion it is not clear; in Rabban Aḥa’s opinion it is clear. Could he not bring them in his hand? It is better to bring them as garment not as load. It is better to push the Sabbath away once not twice. It was stated: Whether he be a man or a woman. They wanted to say, he who said that it is clear, is understandable. He who said that it is not clear, should it not be clear for a man but clear for a woman? Rabbi Eleazar said, who is he who stated “woman”? Rabban Gamliel! As it was stated: Tabi the slave of Rabban Gamliel was putting on tefillin and the Sages did not interfere with him. Did they here interfere with him? It is the same for a slave or a woman. “When has this been said? For used ones, but for new ones he is free.” Why? Old ones are checked, new ones are not checked. It was stated: One has to check tefillin once every twelve months, the words of Rabbi. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, they do not need checking. Hillel the Elder said, these are from my maternal grandfather. If he found two or three heaps, he checks the first pair of the first bundle; the same with the second or the third. Isaac ben Eleazar asked: Does one create a presumption for all of them or is each one of them for itself? If you are saying that one creates a presumption for all of them, he checks the first pair of the first heap. If you are saying that each one creates a presumption for itself, he checks three pairs from each heap. “But in times of danger he covers them and goes away.” “If it was in the rainy season he covers himself with leather and covers them.” Rabbi Aḥa in the name of Rabbi Abba: This you are saying if it is soft. But if it is hard it is like a load. If the place was at an incline, but if it was not an incline this does not apply.
Mishnah
2 Rabbi Simeon says, he gives them to another person, and this one to another, until one reaches the outermost courtyard. Similarly with his son, he gives him to another person, and this one to another, even if they are one hundred. Rabbi Jehudah says, a person may give an amphora to another person, and this one to another, even outside the Sabbath domain. They said to him, it should go no farther than its owner’s feet.
Halakhah
Paragraph. Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Eudaimon in the name of Rabbi Mana: In the case of a baby in danger. His colleague objected to him: If in the case of a baby in danger should he not carry him in his hand? He answered him, if he can bring him in a permitted way. Rabbi Simeion ben Laqish in the name of Levi from Sokho: If he pours from vessel to vessel. For if it were otherwise, would Rabbi Jehudah follow his own opinion, as Rabbi Jehudah said, fluid to wet?
Mishnah
3 He who reads a scroll on the threshold and the scroll rolls away from his hand, rolls it back to himself. If he was reading on a rooftop and the scroll rolls away from his hand, if it did not reach ten hand-breadths he rolls it back to himself; but after it reached ten hand-breadths he turns it upside down on the writing. Rabbi Jehudah says, even if it is removed from the ground only a thread’s width he rolls it back to himself. Rabbi Simeon says, even from the ground itself he rolls it back to himself, since no rabbinic Sabbath prohibition stands before Holy Scripture.
Halakhah
Paragraph. The Mishnah: On the threshold it is permitted, but outside the threshold it is forbidden. Explain it that he was sitting there reading when it still was daytime, or he forgot and took it out. Before it reaches ten hand-breadths he rolls it back to himself. After it reaches ten hand-breadths it is forbidden. Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rabbi Yasa: It is Rabbi Jehudah’s who said that it is forbidden to use the airspace within ten hand-breadths. “But after it reached ten hand-breadths he turns it upside down on the writing.” Why? That the writing should not be debased. This parallels what Rabbi Aḥa said in the name of.Rabbi Samuel bar Naḥman: If a scroll is not covered by a cloth one turns it upside down on the writing so that the writing should not be debased. “Rabbi Jehudah says, even if it is removed from the ground only a thread’s width he rolls it back to himself..” The argument of Rabbi Jehudah is inverted. There he says, it is forbidden to use the airspace within ten hand-breadths; and here he says so? Rabbi Joḥanan said, here there is no Rabbi Jehudah, only Rabbi Meïr, the words of the Sages. Rabbi Yose said in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: Not only a scroll but even a belt.
Mishnah
4 On a ledge in front of a window one puts things on the Sabbath and removes from there.
Halakhah
It speaks only about one, but two are forbidden, for two domains cannot use one domain. If it is not four wide. But if it is four wide, that is what Rabbi Aḥa said in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: Ledges and walls high ten hand-breadths and wide four are permitted for both sides, on condition that he may not exchange.
Mishnah
5 A person may stand in a private domain and move something in the public domain, in the public domain and move something in the private, on condition that he not move it more than four cubits. A person may not stand in a private domain and urinate in the public, or in the public and urinate in the private. Similarly, he may not spit. Rabbi Jehudah says, even somebody whose spittle was accumulating should not walk four cubits before spitting.
Halakhah
Paragraph. Not only “a person may stand in a private domain and move something in the public domain, in the public domain and move something in the private, on condition that he not move it more than four cubits.” Rav said, a Mishnah says so, “A person may not stand in a private domain and unlock in the public domain, in the public domain and unlock in a private domain unless there was made for him a partition ten hand-breadths high, the words of Rabbi Meïr.” Rav said, about soot. Rabbi Joḥanan said, about soot, since does not Rabbi Jehudah say, moist fluid creates a connection? Not only if he stands in a private domain and urinates in the public domain, but even if he stands in the public domain and urinates in the public domain, but if it rolls down into a private domain it is forbidden. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, not only if he stands in the public domain and urinates in a private domain, but even if he stands in a private domain and urinates in a private domain, but if it rolls down into the public domain it is forbidden. Rabbi Yasa said, this implies in a spout standing in the public domain, ten hand-breadths high and four wide, one may not pour water which would roll down and exit.
Mishnah
6 A person may not stand in a private domain and drink in the public domain, in the public domain and drink in a private domain, unless he put his head and most of his body there where he drinks; the same holds for a wine press. A person may collect from a leader lower than ten hand-breadths, and drink anywhere from a gutter.
Halakhah
Paragraph. One understands “in a private domain and drink in the public domain.” “In the public domain and drink in a private domain,” is his mouth not higher than ten hand-breadths? There is a difference since it is running off downwards. It was stated: A camel whose head and most of its body is inside one force-feeds inside, outside one force-feeds outside. One understands “inside one force-feeds inside.” But “outside one force-feeds outside,” is its mouth not higher than ten hand-breadths? Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun has contradictory traditions. Did not Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa say in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina that any three hand-breadths near a partition are like the partition? Explain it if it is outside of three hand-breadths but it is not four wide. If one inserted a stick, surrounded it by a partition, and threw into it from the public domain. Rabbi Isaac ben Eleazar says, a case in dispute. Rabbi Yudan objected: But did we not state: “If she was standing on the top of her roof and he threw it to her, as soon as it reached the roof’s airspace she is divorced.” Rabbi Eleazar said, the Mishnah speaks about a roof with a parapet, after it descended into the airspace of the parapet. If there is no parapet, only if it descended into three hand-breadths close to the roof since any three hand-breadths close to the roof are like the roof. Rabbi Ḥiyya said, “the same holds for a wine press,” refers to tithes. Rabbi Jehudah says, it is Rabbi Meïr’s who said, one considers the wall as if hollowed out. Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rabbi Eleazar: It is everybody’s opinion if it is inclined ten hand-breadths for three cubits. Rabbi Yose asked, if it is inclined ten hand-breadths for three cubits, is it not a roof? Where are we? There, where it does not have to come to rest, you say only after it came to rest; here where it is necessary that it come to rest, not so much more? Rabbi Ḥanina said before Rabbi Mana, in any case it did not come to rest! He told him, since it is not four wide it is as if it did not come to rest.
Mishnah
7 If the railing around a cistern in the public domain is ten hand-breadths high, one may fill from it through a window above it on the Sabbath. If a dungheap in the public domain is ten hand-breadths high, one may pour waste water onto it through a window above it on the Sabbath.
Halakhah
Paragraph. Does one not consider depth equal to height? If its mouth is not wide four hand-breadths. So far if it is blocked in. If it is far away? Rav and Samuel; one said one puts in a plank; the other said, one plants a stick. We did not know who said what. Since Samuel stated, higher than ten hand-breadthsis rabbinically forbidden, he is the one who said that one puts in a plank. If they were two. Two Amoraim, one said ten hand-breadths, the other one said four. He who said ten objected to the one saying four: Does it not turn out that two domains use one domain? He told him, the public domain annuls.
Mishnah
8 A tree which gives a round shadow on the ground, if its crown is less than three hand-breadths from the ground one may carry under it. One may not put back the door of a shed, or the thorns in a breach, or a mat, unless they are higher than the ground.
Halakhah
Only it should be no larger than two bet se’ah, or the walls ten hand-breadths high, nor the opening wider than ten cubits, nor what was standing was opposite what was standing and what was breached opposite the breached. Rabbi Aḥa in the name of Rav: It is forbidden to trample on roots of a vine on the Sabbath. There is no difference between the roots of a barren tree or the roots of cabbage. If they are three hand-breadths high. But if they are not three hand-breadths high they are like the ground. The Mishnah refers to the case that there are no hinges. But if there are hinges that is what was stated: “a hinged door, a hinged mat, hinged lattice gates, one may open and lock on the Sabbath, and it is not necessary to say on a holiday. If a mat was tied to and hanging from a pillar, one may open and lock on the Sabbath, and it is not necessary to say on a holiday.”
Mishnah
9 A person may not stand in a private domain and unlock in the public domain, in the public domain and unlock in a private domain unless there was made for him a partition ten hand-breadths high, the words of Rabbi Meïr. They told him, it happened at the market of the cattle feeders in Jerusalem that they locked up and put the key into the window above the door. Rabbi Yose says, it was the market of the wool vendors.
Halakhah
Paragraph. Rabbi Aḥa, Rabbi Ḥinena in the name of Cahana: Practice does not follow Rabbi Jehudah. Rabbi Abba bar Pappai asked: How did Rabbi Meïr treat the wall, as hollowed out or as pierced? If you say as hollowed out, even higher than ten hand-breadths it should be permitted. If you say as pierced, even below ten hand-breadths it should be prohibited. “ The door of garden plots which have a gatekeeper’s lodge, from the inside he opens and locks from the inside; from the outside he opens and locks from the outside; from both sides he opens and locks from both sides; from neither side he takes the key, opens and locks, and returns it to its place. When has this been said? If the lock is higher than ten hand-breadths. But if the lock is lower than ten hand-breadths he takes the key from the threshold, opens and locks, and returns it to its place, the words of Rabbi Meïr. But the Sages are saying, even if the lock is higher than ten hand-breadths he brings the key on Friday, opens, enters, and moves it inside the house, locks, and puts it into a hole above the lintel. If the hole was four hand-breadths wide it is forbidden, for one does not use one domain from another domain through a third domain.” This implies that Rabbi Jehudah treats it as hollowed out. One understands that from the inside it needs a gatekeeper’s lodge. Why does it need a gatekeper’s lodge from the outside? Does it not turn out that two domains use one domain?
Mishnah
10 If a bolt is topped by a lock, Rabbi Eleazar forbids and Rabbi Yose permits. Rabbi Eleazar said, it happened at the synagogue of Tiberias that they used to permit it until Rabban Gamliel and the Elders came and forbade it to them. Rabbi Yose says, they used to consider it forbidden when Rabban Gamliel and the Elders came and permitted it to them. With a dragged bolt one locks at the Temple but not in the countryside, but the one left alone is forbidden here and there. Rabbi Jehudah says, the one left alone in the Temple and the dragged one in the countryside.
Halakhah
Paragraph: Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi said: He who permits makes the bolt an accessory to the lock; he who forbids makes the lock an accessory of the bolt. What is a dragged bolt? Rabbi Joḥanan said, tied but not hanging. Rabbi Joḥanan said, Ḥilfai pulled me and showed me one of the House of Rabbi tied but not hanging. Rabbi Joḥanan said, the single opinion here is parallel to the anonymous one there, and the anonymous there to the individual here. Rabbi Yose asked before Rabbi Jeremiah: how does one act in actuality? He said to him, since Rabbi Joḥanan said, Ḥilfai pulled me and showed me one of the House of Rabbi tied but not hanging, this implies that one acts following Rabbi Jehudah, except that it be tied to the door. Rabbi Yannai the father-in-law of Rabbi Immi said, only if it is tied to the door by something which can fasten it. Rabbi Eleazar’s bolt was tied with bast. If it was detached it is forbidden; loose? Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of the rabbis, he supports it with his finger tips. Rabbi Abba bar Cahana, Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Rav, practice follows Rabbi Yose.
Mishnah
11 One may replace the lower hinge at the Temple but not in the countryside; the upper one is forbidden here and there. One replaces a wound dressing in the Temple but not in the countryside; a new one is forbidden here and there.
Halakhah
Paragraph. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, not every rabbinic Sabbath prohibition was permitted in the Temple. It was stated: A person should not clean a wound dressing, to avoid spreading, since he who spreads on the Sabbath is liable for a purification sacrifice. And we have stated: If it slipped below one puts it back from above, if it slipped above one puts it back from below. One may uncover part of the wound dressing and cleanse the wound from the other side, and uncover part of the wound dressing and cleanse the wound from the other side. But one may not cleanse the wound dressing to avoid spreading since he who spreads on the Sabbath is liable for a purification sacrifice. It was stated: A plaster which was swollen one puts back on the Sabbath. Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rabbi Yasa: Only if it was swollen over the wound, as it was stated: If it slipped below one puts it back from above, if it slipped above one puts it back from below on condition that it not leave the entire domain of the wound. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun in the name of Rabbi Yose: One may put a dressing on a healed wound since it is only protective. Rabbi Abun in the name of the rabbis there: One may put it on a wound on the Sabbath since it is only protective. Rabbi Tanḥuma said, except vine leaves which only are for healing. Rabbi Ḥuna said, madder is a good root, the more the better. If it has five or seven or nine knots, only if it does not ooze fluid. One does not recite a verse over a wound quoting the Name; the one which one recites about mandrakes is forbidden. Come and recite this verse for my son who is afraid, put on him a scroll, put on him phylacteries, so he will go to sleep, is forbidden. But did we not state, they used to recite the Song of the Afflicted in Jerusalem? Rabbi Yudan said, one means before he was hurt, the other after he was hurt. What is the Song of the Afflicted? How many are my oppressors, and the entire Psalm. Sitting in the shelter of the Most High up to: Truly, You, Eternal, are my refuge.
Mishnah
12 One replaces a wound dressing in the Temple but not in the countryside; a new one is forbidden here and there. One ties strings in the Temple but not in the countryside; a new one is forbidden here and there. One cuts a wart in the Temple but not in the countryside; using an implement is forbidden here and there.
Halakhah
Paragraph. “One ties strings in the Temple but not in the countryside.” Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, this is Rabbi Simeon ben Eleazar’s, as Rabbi Simeon ben Eleazar stated, if a broken violin string is tied it does not give a sound, but he strings from above and makes a loop below. It was stated: Rabbi Simeon ben Eleazar said, Cohanim, Levites, Israel, and musical instruments obstruct the sacrifice. “One cuts a wart at the Temple but not in the countryside.” There we have stated: “cutting his wart does not push aside;” and here you are saying so? Rabbi Simon in the name of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi in the name of Rabbi Pedaya: Because of vitiation of the lotteries. Rabbi Yose said, but only if they drew lots. Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish said in the name of Levi Sobaya: Whether it can be scraped off or cannot be scraped off. Rabbi Simeon ben Yaqim said, one if it is moist, the other if it is dry. Rabbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, here by hand, there by implement. It turns out that Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish parallels Bar Qappara, and Rabbi Yose ben Ḥanina Rabbi Joḥanan, as it was stated: All who destroy are not liable, except the incendiary and one causing an injury. Bar Qappara said, even if he did not need the blood, even if he did not need the ashes. Rabbi Joḥanan said, only if he needed the blood or the ashes. Rabbi Aḥa, Rabbi Ḥanina in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: In both cases if it is moist, and only if he needs the blood.
Mishnah
13 A Cohen who has a wound on his finger binds bast on it in the Temple but not in the countryside; it there is no blood it is forbidden here and there. One sprinkles salt on the ramp so it should not be slippery and one fills from the cistern of the Diaspora with a wheel on the Sabbath, from the large cistern and from the cold well on a holiday.
Halakhah
Paragraph. Jehudah the important said, they only stated “bast” but bingion is prohibited because of excess clothing. They wanted to say excess of clothing is like deficiency in clothing. Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rabbi Yasa: Rabbi Ḥanina’s, as Rabbi Ḥanina said, only it should not separate between him and a garment or between garment and garment. In Rabbi Ḥanina’s opinion, what is excess clothing? Two shirts, two turbans, two pants, two belts. If a Cohen was injured on his finger and wound a belt around it; is anything called “belt” inadmissible or only clothing? It was stated: “One lifts in a siphon and sprinkles with an ˋedeq for a sick person on the Sabbath.” One lifts in a siphon, משתמיהה. And sprinkles with an ˋedeq, some want to say עיררה; some want to say, a small water pitcher. In a courtyard where it started to rain and there was a house of mourning or a wedding feast, one takes straw and beats it down on condition that he should not do it on the Sabbath in the way he does it on a weekday. It was stated: One does not fill with a lentil of the Sabbath. If he is afraid for the rope or the cord it is permitted. “One fills from the cistern of the Diaspora with a wheel on the Sabbath, from the large cistern and from the cold well on a holiday.” Why “may one fill from the cold well with a wheel on the holiday”? But at the time when Israel came from the diaspora and camped at this well, the prophets among them stipulated that one could fill from the cold well with a wheel on the holiday. They did not permit all cold wells, only this well at which they camped. As you are saying there, what was permitted was permitted, and here what was permitted was permitted.
Mishnah
14 If a crawling animal was found in the Temple, a Cohen carries it outside in his belt in order not to continue the impurity, the words of Rabbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa. Rabbi Jehudah says, with wooden tongs in order not to increase impurity. From where does one remove it? From the Temple Hall, and the vestibule, and from between the vestibule and the altar, the words of Rabbi Simeon ben Nannas. Rabbi Aqiba says, from a place where one is liable for extirpation in case of criminal intent and a purification offering if in error one removes it; at all other places one places a wine cooler over it. Rabbi Simeon said, at a place where the Sages permitted it to you they gave it from your own since they only permitted because of rabbinic Sabbath restrictions.
Halakhah
Paragraph. “If a crawling animal was found in the Temple,” etc. Rabbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa said to him, did you not prolong the impurity? He answered him, did you not increase impurity? He told him, it is better to violate a prohibition that was not caused by him than a prohibition which will come before him. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, this disagreement parallels another disagreement, as we have stated there, “how does one separate ḥallah in impurity on a holiday? Rabbi Eliezer says, one should not declare its name until after it was baked. Ben Bathyra says, he should put it into cold water.” Rabbi Joshua said to him, are you not like one who burns sancta on a holiday? Rabbi Eliezer told him, it is burned automatically. Rabbi Joshua said to him, are you not transgressing it should not be seen, and it should not be found? He told him, it is better to violate a prohibition that was not caused by you than a prohibition which will come before you. There, we have stated: “Blood to be given in one batch which was mixed with blood to be given in one batch should be given in one batch. That to be given in four batches with that to be given in four batches should be given in four batches. That to be given in four batches with that to be given in one batch, Rabbi Eliezer says, it should be given in four batches. Rabbi Joshua says, it should be given in one batch. Rabbi Eliezer said to him, would you not transgress do not diminish? Rabbi Joshua answered him, would you not transgress do not add?” He said to him, it is better to violate a prohibition that was not caused by me than a prohibition which will come before me. There, we have stated: “He enters his head and he puts on his ear’s cartilage, his hand and he gives on his thumb, his foot,” etc. Rabbi Jehudah’s argument is inverted. There he says, it is forbidden to act craftily, but here he says that it is permitted. There that he should not enter with his head and most of his body and be punishable by extirpation. But here it is because of bringing impure implements on the Sabbath. The argument of the rabbis is inverted. There they say, it is permitted to act craftily, but here they say, it is forbidden to act craftily. There that he should not defile himself three times, but here it is a known impurity inside; it is possible for it to be removed immediately. Without impurity? He told him, it is better to violate a prohibition that was not caused by him than a prohibition which will come before him. If he removed it from a place where one is subject to extirpation for it and it fell into a place where one is not subject to extirpation for it, already it is subject to removal. If he found another next to it, does he remove both of them or only the one subject to removal? “He used to say, a wrench is made by a wrench. How was the first wrench made? It was created.” Rabbi Ḥanina said before Rabbi Mana: How do you explain this? From one wrench they learned many wrenches; from one Sabbath prohibition they learned many Sabbath prohibitions.”
Connections in Jerusalem Eruvin
0 connections
No connections in this book yet.