Mesorat%20hashas for Eruvin 198:23

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> א"ר הונא בריה דרב יהושע אין מטלטלין בו יתר מבית סאתים מ"ט

in that alley; he did not declare it to be permitted since the possibility had to be considered that the rubbish-heap might be removed<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And its place would use the character of a private domain.');">⁵⁰</span> or the sea might throw up alluvium,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus turning the place, when dried up, into a public domain, and the public would use it as a thoroughfare (cf. R. Han.) .');">⁵¹</span> and he did not declare it to be forbidden because<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' At the time at least.');">⁵²</span> partitions<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The side from which the doors had opened, the sea embankment and the rubbish-heap.');">⁵³</span> in fact existed?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 8a. Now since provision against the possibility of the cleaning of the rubbish-heap was made in the case of the alley, why was no similar provision made in the case deal with in our Mishnah?');">⁵⁴</span> - This is no difficulty, since the latter refers to one<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'that', the rubbish-heap at the side of the alley.');">⁵⁵</span> that belonged to an individual<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where the clearance of the comparatively small quantity of rubbish might well be expected.');">⁵⁶</span> whereas the former<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That referred to in our MISHNAH:');">⁵⁷</span> refers to one that belonged to the public.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is unlikely to be removed.');">⁵⁸</span> <big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>WHERE A TREE OVERSHADOWS THE GROUND<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. its branches hanging downwards all around.');">⁵⁹</span> IT IS PERMITTED TO MOVE OBJECTS UNDER IT IF THE TOPS OF ITS BRANCHES ARE NOT HIGHER THAN THREE HANDBREADTHS FROM THE GROUND.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Their separation from the ground by less than three handbreadths is, wider the law of labud, completely disregarded and they are, therefore, deemed to be actually touching the ground; and, since at their other ends at which they are joined to the tree they are raised ten handbreadths from the ground, they constitute a partition ten handbreadths high all round that tree.');">⁶⁰</span> IF ITS ROOTS ARE THREE HANDBREADTHS HIGH ABOVE THE GROUND<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And much more so if they were higher.');">⁶¹</span> ONE MAY NOT SIT ON THEM.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Such a height imparts to them the character of a tree which may not be made use of on the Sabbath.');">⁶²</span> <big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>R'Huna the son of R'Joshua ruled: No objects may be moved<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Beyond four cubits.');">⁶³</span> under it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The tree dealt with in our MISHNAH:');">⁶⁴</span> where the area was greater than two beth se'ah.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even though the tree had been originally planted for the purpose of overshadowing the ground and serving as a shelter for watchmen.');">⁶⁵</span> What is the reason?

Explore mesorat%20hashas for Eruvin 198:23. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.