Copyright
Michael Levi Rodkinson.

New edition of the Babylonian Talmud. Original text edited, corrected, formulated, and translated into English (Volume 3) online

. (page 24 of 27)
Online LibraryMichael Levi RodkinsonNew edition of the Babylonian Talmud. Original text edited, corrected, formulated, and translated into English (Volume 3) → online text (page 24 of 27)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


Boraitha: Rabbi said: " When we learned the Law at R. Sim-
eon's in the city of Thequa, we would carry towels and oil from
one roof to another, from that to the court, and from that
to another, and from the other court to a woodshed, and from
that to another, until we would come to the springs where we
would bathe."

Said R. Jehudah: " It happened in a time of danger, that we
brought up the sacred scrolls from a court to a roof, from the
roof to another court, and from that to a woodshed in order to
read therein." The sages answered: "Acts committed during
a time of danger do not serve as evidence,"

' ' R. Simeon said: ' Roofs as well as courts and woodsheds, ' ' '
etc. Said Rabh: " The Halakha prevails according to R. Sim-
eon, providing no Erub was made, but if an Erub was effected,
it is not so, because there is fear, lest the utensils from the houses
be carried out on the Sabbath and are then carried about in all
the courts." (R. Simeon himself admits, that they form one
private ground for the carrying of such utensils as were actually



2i8 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

within the courts or roofs when the Sabbath set in but nor for
such utensils as were within the house.) Samuel, however, as
well as R. Johanan, said: " There is no difference whether an
Erub was made or not."

R. Hisda opposed this: According to Samuel and R. Johanan
there will be two kinds of vessels in the court, one kind, which
had already been situated in the court when the Sabbath set in,
and the other, which was brought out from the house during
Sabbath. Is then not the precautionary measure decreed by
Rabh really necessary ? Simeon holds to his theory that pre-
cautionary measures are not necessary.

Come and hear: " Five courts which opened into each other
and also opened into one alley, the inmates of which had all for-
gotten and not combined an Erub, (the inmates) are prohibited
to carry in or carry out from the court into the alley, or from the
alley into the court. The utensils which were situated in the
courts when the Sabbath set in may be carried in the courts, but
the utensils which were situated in the alley must not be carried
even in the alley. R. Simeon, however, permits this to be done
(even to carry the utensils of the court into the alley) because he
used to say: as long as many people lived there and had forgotten
to combine an Erub, the roof, the court, the balcony, the gallery,
the woodshed, and the alley are all considered the same legal
premises." Thus we see that R. Simeon makes this decree only
if no Erub was made, but if an Erub was made he would not do
so; hence he contradicts Samuel and R. Johanan? Nay; R.
Simeon states this merely to supplement the statement of the
sages and says to them: " As far as I am concerned it makes no
difference whether an Erub was made or not, but according to
your opinion, grant me, that when no Erub was. made the
courts, the roofs, etc. all constitute the same legal premises."
The sages, however, answered: " Nay; according to our opinion,
each constitutes separate premises."

Said Rabhina to R. Ashi: " Is it possible that R. Johanan
said this ? Did not R. Johanan say, that the Halakha prevails
according to an anonymous Mishna, and we have learned previ-
ously (Chapter VII., Mishna 2) concerning a wall between two
courts, if there was fruit on the wall, the inmates of both courts
may partake of the fruit providing they do not carry any of it
down with them ? Hence we see that it is not permitted, accord-
ing to that Mishna, to carry things from one court into another
even if an Erub was made by each court ! " (R. Ashi answered :)



TRACT ERUBIN.



219



By carrying it down is meant carrying it down into the houses,
but carrying it down into the courts is permitted.

Asked Rabhina again: " Did not R. Hyya teach (in addition
to the quoted Mishna), ' providing the inmates of each court do
not take it down into their respective courts and eat it '? " Said
R. Ashi : " If Rabbi did not teach this in the Mishna, whence
does R. Hyya adduce that explanation (I think that my inter-
pretation of the Mishna is correct) ?"

It was taught: " If there were two courts, which had a ruin
between them and the inmates of one court combined an Erub,
while the inmates of the other did not, R. Huna said that the
court that had not the Erub is entitled to the ruin {i.e., the ves-
sels situated in their court may be transferred to the ruin) but the
court that had combined the Erub is not entitled to the ruin for
fear that they might carry out vessels, which were situated in their
houses on the Sabbath, into the court, and thence into the ruin."

Hyya, the son of Rabh, however, said : (I heard from my
father) that even the court that had an Erub combined may be
entitled to the ruin and I explain my father's dictum to signify,
that the utensils contained in either court may be transferred to
the ruin. If thou shouldst explain my father's dictum to sig-
nify, that neither of the courts may make use of the ruin,
because he understood R. Simeon's decree to mean " if they
had made an Erub they became separate premises," hence, in
this case, one of the courts having combined an Erub interferes
with others also, I will answer it by saying, that such would be
the case if there were an occupied court between them, in which
event there might be vessels which were situated in the court
when the Sabbath set in and also vessels which had been carried
out of the houses, so that it would be impossible to distinguish
which could and which could not be carried throughout all the
courts. When, however, as is the case here, a ruin is between
the two courts where there are no vessels which are actually
situated there, the danger of confusion is removed and hence
my explanation is, that it is permitted for both courts to transfer
their vessels to the ruin.

MISHNA: If a large roof adjoin a small one, the owners of
the large roof are permitted to carry things thither from the
house, but the owners of the small roof are prohibited to do this.
If a large court opens into a small one, through a breach in the
wall, the inmates of the large court are permitted to carry
things through the breach, but the inmates of the small court



220 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

are prohibited to do so, because the smaller court is considered
as an entry to the larger,

GEMARA: Why does the Mishna teach both cases, concern-
ing a roof and a court ? According to Rabh, the object is to
demonstrate that in the same manner as courts are divided by
partitions so should the partitions between roofs be apparent.
According to Samuel, the object is to show, that a roof is on a
par with a court, i.e., as the latter is used by many, so also is
the former.

Rabba, R. Zera, and Rabba bar R. Hanan were sitting
together and Abayi sate close by. They said: " From this
Mishna we may adduce, that the inmates of the larger court
control the actions of the smaller, whereas the inmates of the
smaller court exert no influence over those of the larger. How
so ? (For instance:) If vines were planted in the larger, other
seed must not be planted in the smaller; but if the vines were
planted in the smaller, any other seed may be planted in the
larger. If a woman who was to be divorced stood in the smaller
court and the bill of divorce was thrown to her from the larger
court, she is thereby legally divorced, but if she stood in the
larger and the bill was thrown to her from the smaller court,
she is not legally divorced. If the congregation assembled for
prayer stood in the larger and the reader who was to recite the
prayer for them was in the smaller, they have acquitted them-
selves of their duty; if they were in the smaller court, however,
and the reader was in the larger, they have not. If there were
nine men in the larger court and one man in the smaller, that
one man is counted in with the nine and it constitutes a legal
assembly for prayer or for the commission of religious acts, but
if there were nine men in the smaller and one in the larger that
one man cannot be counted in. If there was a filthy thing in
the smaller court (on account of which the Shema prayer could
not be recited) the larger court may nevertheless recite the
prayer; but if the filthy thing was in the larger court the inmates
of the smaller are not allowed to do so."

Said Abayi to them: " According to this then, a partition,
which under ordinary circumstances should facilitate the observ-
ance of laws, would prove a detriment ; for were there no parti-
tion between the larger and smaller court and vines were planted
anywhere within the two courts, a man would simpl)^ be obliged
to measure off four ells whence the vines grew and could then
plant whatever he chose."



TRACT ERUBIN.



Rabha, through R. Shmaiah ben Zera, sent the following
query to Abayi: " Do we not find as a matter of fact that a
partition at times proves a detriment ? Did we not learn in a
Boraitha, that concerning the partitions of a vineyard there are
instances where they make the observance of laws more lenient
and on the other hand there are instances where they make it
more rigorous." How so ? If the vines are planted hard by
the partition, one may on the other side of the partition plant
whatever he chooses. If there were no partition, however, he
would have to measure off four ells whence the vines grew and
then plant whatever he chose. This is an instance of leniency
caused by the partition. When does it make the law more rig-
orous ? If the vines were planted to within eleven ells of the
partition, it is not allowed to plant other seed anywhere within
those eleven ells ; but if there were no partition, four ells would
suffice between the vineyard and the place where other seed was
to be planted. Rejoined Abayi: " Why base thy query upon
a Boraitha, if in thy opinion the partition is the main issue ?
Why not cite the following Mishna ? (Kilaim, Chapter IV.,
Mishna 2 :) 'If the space between the vineyard and the fence
which surrounds it be less than twelve square ells, no other seed
may be sown therein ; but if it measure that superficies, a vacant
space must be allowed for the cultivation of the vines growing
near it, and the rest of the ground may be used for saving (other
seed).' " We must say, that because in the Mishna the partition
is not the issue, but it is a question of the space between the
four ells allowed for the cultivation of the vineyard and the four
ells allowed to the hedge or fence, and if such space is four ells
wide {i.e., if the whole is twelve) other seed may be sown
therein, but if less than four, it is abandoned. Hence we might
say, that the same issue is treated of in the Boraitha ?

R. Jehudah said: " If there are three woodsheds opening
into each other, of which the two outer are enclosed while the
middle one is not 1 ^ ■ ■ i

wamwtA B I I



(see illustration y4),

and there is a man

in each of the wood- ^

sheds, the men are
considered as a caravan and are entitled to as much room as they
desire. If the middle one, however, was enclosed, but the two
outer ones were not (see illustration E), and there was a man in
each of the three woodsheds, they are entitled to a space of six




222 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

saahs' capacity, i.e., two saahs to each man. (For the reason,
that in the first instance the middle woodshed is smaller than
either of the two outer ones and is virtually absorbed by them,
while in the latter case, the middle woodshed is the larger, but
cannot absorb the two outer ones, hence the men cannot be con-
sidered as a caravan.)"

The schoolmen propounded a question: " How is it if (in
the latter instance of the woodsheds, illustration B) there were
two men in the middle woodshed and one each in the outer
sheds ? Shall we assume that the two men of the middle shed,
having a right to either shed, are considered as being in either
one of the two outer sheds, and three persons being in one place,
thereby form a caravan, or shall we say, that as there are two
men in the middle woodshed, each one of them can occupy
either court, in which event there would be two people each in
the outer courts and no caravan is formed — consequently they
are entitled only to a space of two saahs' capacity for each
man ? If the latter instance should apply, how would it be if
there were two men in each of the outer sheds and one man in
the middle shed ? Whichever court he might occupy, there
would be three men, and thus a caravan would be formed, or,
because there is doubt which he would occupy, having a right
to either, it would not be considered as a caravan?" The
answer was: "All ordinances pertaining to Erubin should be
construed in their most lenient form."

Said R. Hisda: " If a court was five spans higher at the
edges than in the centre and a partition of five spans height
was added to the edges, it does not constitute a valid partition ;
for either the edges must be ten spans high to commence with
or the partition must be made ten spans high." Mareimar,
however, maintained, that the two may be counted together and
constitute a legal partition.

Rabhina met R. A'ha the son of Rabha and asked him :
"Does the master teach anything pertaining to partitions?"
and he answered : ' ' Nay. ' ' The Halakha prevails, that the edges
of the court and the partitions are counted together and con-
stitute a legal partition.

R. Oshiya propoun,ded a question: " How is it if new habi-
tations are added to a court on the Sabbath {i.e., if a wall
between two courts had become broken and thus new dwellings
were added); do they impede the inmates of that court or not ? "
Said R. Hisda: Come and hear: (We have learned this in our



TRACT ERUBIN, 223

Mishna:) " If a large court opens into a small one, through a
breach in the wall, the inmates of the large court are permitted
to carry things through the breach, but the inmates of the small
court are prohibited to do so." Rejoined Rabba: " Perhaps
the Mishna refers to a breach that was made before the Sab-
bath set in." Said Abayi: " The Master should not say ' per-
haps ' ; it is certain, that the breach was caused on the eve of
Sabbath ; because didst not thou, Master, say thyself at one time,
that thou didst ask of R. Huna and of R. Jehudah concerning
an Erub which was made through an aperture or a door which
had accidentally become closed up on the Sabbath and they told
thee, that if that happened after the Sabbath set in, the Erub is
valid for the whole Sabbath, having been valid at the beginning
(and they certainly would not contradict a Mishna)! "

It was taught : If a wall between two courts was destroyed
on the Sabbath, Rabh said, that it is not permitted to carry
things in either of the courts for a distance of over four ells,
but Samuel maintains, that the inmates of each court may
carry as far as the ruins of the wall. The statement herein
attributed to Rabh was not made by him outright, but was
inferred from the occurrence as follows : Rabh and Samuel were
both sitting in one court on Sabbath and suddenly the wall of
the court caved in. Said Samuel to the other inmates of the
court: " Take a garment and hang it up in place of the wall."
Rabh turned away his face from Samuel. Said Samuel: "If
Abba (Rabh) is angry let him take his girdle and fasten the gar-
ment with it to the wall." If according to Samuel it is allowed
to carry as far as the ruins of the wall, why did he order that a
garment should be fastened as a partition ? Samuel did not
order this to be done in order to make a partition but merely to
prevent outsiders from peering into the court. And Rabh ! if
he holds that it is not allowed to carry he should have said so ?
It was Samuel's domain, and he could not contradict him at that
time. Why then did he turn away his face ? (Surely he is not
responsible for Samuel's actions.) In order to show that he did
not agree with Samuel's opinion but still adhered to his Oivn.

MISHNA: If a court (through an incavation of its walls) is
laid open to public ground, whosoever brings anything' from
private ground into such a court, or from the court into private
ground, is culpable. Such is the dictum of R. Eliezer. The
sages hold, however: Whoever brings anything from the court
into public ground, or from public ground into the court, is



224 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

absolved ; since the court (through the incavation of its walls
and consequent opening) has become like unclaimed ground.

GEMARA: Does R. Eliezer hold, that if a court by reason
of the incavation of its walls is laid open to public ground, it
becomes public ground? Yea! He holds to his theory as
expressed elsewhere (Baba Bathra), that if the public had taken
a certain path through a meadow (although there was no path)
and used it constantly, it remains a path (and the same is the
case with this court; if it was laid open into public ground it
becomes the same as public ground). This is not so ! Did not
R. Giddel say in the name of Rabh, that R. Eliezer (in the pas-
sage quoted) referred to a case where the original path had been
lost and could not be found, and if we would assume that in the
case of the court he holds, that only the space which had been
lost to the public, i.e., where it is not apparent that the wall had
been standing, becomes as public ground, but the whole court is
certainly not to be considered such ; did not R. Hanina say, that
the sages and R. Eliezer differ as to the entire space up to where
the wall was standing ? Hence we must say, that R. Eliezer
holds the entire court to have become as public ground ! The
statement of R. Hanina should be modified to the effect, that
they differ only as to the space that had been occupied by the
wall and not up to the wall ; thus R. Eliezer does not consider
the entire court as public ground. If you wish, I may say, that
(the place where the wall stood is still apparent, and) the sages
differ with R. Eliezer merely as to the adjoining places to public
ground. R. Eliezer holds them to be the same as public ground,
while the sages say that, as there had at one time been a court
there, it is now not public ground.

MISHNA: In a court (the corner walls of which had fallen
in on Sabbath so) that (it) has been laid open to public ground
on two sides; also in a house (which by a similar accident) was
laid open on two sides; or in an entry the cross and side beam
of which had been removed, it is permitted to carry things on
that same Sabbath ; but it is not permitted to do so on the suc-
ceeding Sabbaths. Such is the dictum of R. Jehudah ; but R.
Jose said: If it were permitted for that particular Sabbath, it
would also be permitted for the future; but since it is prohibited
for the future, it is also prohibited on that same Sabbath.

GEMARA: How is the case with the walls treated of in the
Mishna ? If the breach caused by the incavation does not
exceed ten ells, (it is regarded as a door) so what difference docs



TRACT ERUBIN. 225

it make upon how many sides the court has been laid open ? If
the breach, however, exceeded ten ells, then it would be the
same even if one side only were laid open. Said Rabh : The
breach does not exceed ten ells but in a corner it is not custom-
ary to make a door.

"A house which was laid open on both sides,'' etc. How
would it be if the house were laid open only on one side ? We
would say, that the edge of the roof is supposed to reach down
to the bottom and thus serve as a substitute for the wall by
application of the law of " Gud Achith." Cannot the same rule
apply to two sides of a house ? Let the edge of the roof on
both sides be supposed to reach down to the bottom ? Said the
disciples of Rabh in the name of their master: " The Mishna
refers to a house where the corner walls had fallen in and where
the roof was not flat but slanting, so that with the walls it also
fell."

Samuel said: " In the case of a court the Mishna does refer
to an instance where the breach exceeded ten ells, but it also
states that the walls had caved in on both sides because further,
when treating of a house, it must specify two sides, hence it
does so also when courts are in question." Why must two
sides be mentioned in the instance of a house ? Cannot the
edge of the roof be supposed to reach down to the bottom of
both walls ? Then again does Samuel hold to the supposition,
that the edge of the roof reaches to the bottom of the wall ?
Was it not taught that concerning a gallery in a valley, Rabh
said, it is permitted to carry throughout the whole extent of the
valley, because the edges of the gallery are supposed to reach
down to the ground and thus form a partition for the entire val-
ley, whereas Samuel maintained that this supposition cannot be
considered and hence it is only permitted to carry for a distance
of four ells ? This would not present a difficulty, for in that
case Samuel maintains, that the edges of the gallery must not be
supposed to reach down to the ground because there must be
four distinct partitions, but where only three are necessary he
would admit the feasibility of such a supposition. The difficulty
concerning the two sides of the house where the breach measured
over ten ells still remains! In the same manner as the disciples
of Rabh referred to a house where the corner walls had fallen in
together with their slanting roof, Samuel may refer to a house,
the corner walls of which had sustained a breach four ells in
width on each corner, or eight ells in all, and five ells in length
VOL. III. — 15



226 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

on one side, and five ells and a trifle on the other side, or
slightly over ten ells in all. Hence it would be necessary to sup-
pose that the edges of the roof reach down on four sides of the
breach two in width and two in length and that would be con-
trary to the theory of Samuel !

Why does Samuel not hold with Rabh ? Because the Mishna
does not mention a slanting roof and Rabh does not hold with
Samuel because he (Rabh, as we have seen in the instance of the
gallery in the valley) permits of the supposition, that the edges
of a gallery or a roof can reach down on four sides.

" R. Jose said : If it were permitted for that particular Sab-
bath,'' etc. The schoolmen propounded a question : " How is
R. Jose's dictum to be construed ? Does he mean to permit it
entirely or to prohibit it entirely?" R. Shesheth as well as
R. Johanan said: " He means to prohibit it entirely." We also
learned to this effect in a Boraitha, viz.: R. Jose said: As they
are not permitted to carry on subsequent Sabbaths, so are they
also prohibited to do so on that particular Sabbath.

It was taught: R. Hyya bar Joseph said, the Halakha pre-
vails according to R. Jose, and Samuel said: "The Halakha
prevails according to R. Jehudah. Did Samuel indeed say so ? "
Did not R. Jehudah reply to R. Hana of Bagdad that Samuel
decreed: " The Halakha prevails according to R. Jehudah in all
cases pertaining to Erubin, but not where partitions are con-
cerned ? " Said R. Anan: "Samuel himself explained to me
that if the courts were laid open towards unclaimed ground the
Halakha prevails according to R. Jehudah but if they were laid
open towards public ground the Halakha prevails according to
R. Jose."

MISHNA: If an attic be built over two houses, also if
bridges are open at both ends, it is lawful to carry things under-
neath on the Sabbath. Such is the dictum of R. Jehudah; but
the sages prohibit it. Moreover, R. Jehudah further said: It is
lawful to combine, by means of an Erub, an alley that is open
at both ends, but the sages prohibit it.

GEMARA: Said Rabba: Do not say that the reason of R.
Jehudah is because a private ground requires according to bibli-
cal law only two partitions, but because he holds (Gud Achith)
that the ends of the roofs (in this case of the attic or the
bridge) are supposed to reach down to the bottom.



CHAPTER X.

SUNDRY REGULATIONS CONCERNING THE SABBATH.

MISHNA: If a man (on Sabbath) find tephilin (on the road),
he should match them and bring them (into the nearest town
or village) in single pairs {i.e., one for the head and one for the
arm). Rabbon Gamaliel said: " He may bring in two pair at a
time." To what does this rule apply? To old tephilin (phy-
lacteries), but if they be new, he need not bring them in (at all).
If he find them tied up in pairs, or all tied together, he should
remain with them till dark and then bring them in. In times of
danger (religious persecutions), however, he covers them up and
passes on. R. Simeon said: He should hand them to his com-
panion {i.e., the man standing next to him), who in turn hands


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 24 26 27

Online LibraryMichael Levi RodkinsonNew edition of the Babylonian Talmud. Original text edited, corrected, formulated, and translated into English (Volume 3) → online text (page 24 of 27)