Talmud for Eruvin 34:20

מותר

should no flogging be incurred in that case also?26 - It was this difficulty that R'Jonathan felt: [Is not this]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The injunction, 'Let no man go out' (Ex. XVI, 29) from which the prohibitions of both (a) walking beyond the Sabbath limits and (b) carrying utk from one Sabbath domain into another are inferred (v. Tosaf. s.v. a.l.) .');">27 a prohibition that was given to [authorize] a warning of death at the hands of Beth din28 and for any prohibition given to [authorize] a warning of death no flogging is incurred?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even where the penalty of death is not inflicted as, for instance, where the witnesses gave their warning in respect of flogging. How then could it be ruled by R. Hiyya that 'for transgressing the laws of 'erub of boundaries', which are derived from the same text (cf. supra p. 118 n. 15) , 'flogging is incurred'?');">29 - R'Ashi replied: Is it written in Scripture, 'Let no man carry out?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which would explicitly have referred to the carrying of objects. Had this been the case, and as walking beyond the Sabbath limits is inferred from the same text, as no flogging is incurred for the carrying of objects so could none be incurred for walking beyond the Sabbath limits.');">30 It is [in fact] written: Let no man go out.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XVI, 29. Since the expression used is actually that of going out, flogging is rightly incurred for acting against this prohibition (cf. Tosaf. loc. cit. Rashi has a different interpretation) .');">31 <big>MISHNAH: </big>WELLS<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That are situated in a public domain and are no less than ten handbreadths deep and four handbreadths wide and, in consequence, subject to the status of a private domain.');">32 MAY BE PROVIDED33 WITH STRIPS OF WOOD34 [BY FIXING] FOUR CORNER-PIECES<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Or deyomads (cf. note supra 15a) , each consisting of two upright boards of the prescribed measurements (v. infra) with their ends joined at right angles to each other.');">35 THAT HAVE THE APPEARANCE OF EIGHT [SINGLE STRIPS];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that each of the four sides of the well is screened at each of its two ends by a strip of wood of the prescribed size, and the space around it within the enclosure is thus converted into a private domain into which water from the well may be drawn (cf. supra n. 2) .');">36 SO R'JUDAH. R'MEIR RULED: EIGHT [STRIPS THAT] HAVE THE APPEARANCE OF TWELVE [MUST BE SET UP], FOUR BEING CORNER-PIECES AND FOUR SINGLE [STRIPS].37 THEIR HEIGHT [MUST BE] TEN HANDBREADTHS, THEIR WIDTH SIX, AND THEIR THICKNESS [MAY BE] OF ANY SIZE WHATSOEVER'BETWEEN THEM [THERE MAY BE] AS MUCH38 [SPACE AS TO ADMIT] TWO TEAMS OF THREE OXEN EACH; SO R'MEIR; BUT R'JUDAH SAID: OF FOUR [OXEN EACH, THESE TEAMS BEING] TIED TOGETHER AND NOT APART39 [BUT THERE MAY BE SPACE ENOUGH FOR] ONE40 TO ENTER WHILE THE OTHER GOES OUT.41 IT IS PERMITTED TO BRING [THE STRIPS] CLOSE TO THE WELL, PROVIDED A COW CAN BE WITHIN [THE ENCLOSURE WITH] ITS HEAD AND THE GREATER PART OF ITS BODY WHEN DRINKING.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the space is smaller, the drawing of water is forbidden on the Sabbath, since the cow might back out of the enclosure and one might carry the bucket after her and thus be guilty of carrying from a private, into a public domain.');">42 IT IS PERMITTED

Jerusalem Talmud Eruvin

There, we have stated¹²¹Mishnah Miqwaot 2:2. The Mishnah states that if a person was impure by biblical standards he can be purified only by immersion in a miqweh which is unquestionably valid. But if his impurity is rabbinic, immersion in a miqweh will purify him unless the miqweh is unquestionably invalid. R. Yose disagrees and holds that the principle of permanence of the status quo ante also applies to rabbinic impurity and the miqweh must be unquestionably valid.: “If there is a doubt, it is pure; Rebbi Yose declares it impure.” Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Yose declared it impure only because of proof¹²²If there are a group of items, the status of one is certain but that of the others is uncertain, one may assume that the other items share the status of the certain one unless proven otherwise (cf. Demay 2:1 2^nd of paragraph; Terumot 4:8 Note 83.) The Mishnah quotes the case that there be two miqwaot, one of them known to be invalid, while the other might be valid. If the person does not know in which of the two he immersed, R. Yose holds that it must have been the invalid one.. And Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Yose declares impure even (one place) [one miqweh]¹²³The text in parentheses is from L, that in brackets from G. The preceding argument is rejected, R. Yose applies the principle of permanence of the status quo ante even if nothing is certain and there is only one item.. The argument of Rebbi Yose seems inverted, as we have stated: “Rebbi Yose said, Autolas¹⁷In other sources the name is אבטולמוס (Ptolemaios). testified in the name of five Elders that in case of a doubt an eruv is qualified¹⁸Since the eruv is a rabbinic institution to allow carrying in or walking to places biblically permitted, in cases of doubt one has to permit..” 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 permitted¹²⁴The two cases cannot be compared. The rules of impurity are biblical even if they are extended to cover cases of only rabbinic impurity. The rules of eruv are all rabbinic.. Rebbi Ḥinena said, do they not only disagree about their words? And a doubt about their words is for leniency¹²⁵He holds the opposite view. The Mishnah Miqwaot clearly distinguishes between biblical and rabbinic impurity and decrees leniency only for rabbinic cases; for him the rules of eruv teḥumim are all biblical; only eruv ḥaṣerot is rabbinical.. But an eruv is a word of Torah; and a doubt about a word of the Torah is for restriction¹²⁶A generally recognized principle, cf. Ketubot 1:1 Note 21. But is eruv a word of the Torah? Rebbi Jonathan said before the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi Yose ben Laqonia: One whips because of Sabbath domains as word of the Torah¹²⁷Babli 17b. This proves at least that leaving one’s Sabbath domain is a biblical violation.. Rebbi Ḥiyya the Elder said to him, but for Sabbath there is only stoning or extirpation¹²⁸A Sabbath violation of one of the 39 forbidden categories of work is punishable by stoning if there are witnesses or divine extirpation otherwise. We do not find flogging as punishment for any Sabbath violation.? He said to him, is there not written¹²⁹Ex. 12:9., 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 written¹³⁰Ex. 16:29. Even though this is the sequence of the sentences also in G, it is clear that the order has to be inverted. R. Jonathan first quoted Ex. 16:29 as proof that leaving one’s domain on the Sabbath is a biblical violation. Since no punishment is stated, the standard sanction of flogging applies. To this R. Ḥiyya replies that the standard sanction applies only to prohibitions introduced by לֹא, not to admonitions formulated with אַל. R. Jonathan retorts that this explanation is impossible since eating the Passover sacrifice raw is a punishable transgression forbidden by אַל., 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. Rebbi ben Rebbi Abun said, nevertheless each one kept to his tradition¹³¹It is unresolved whether leaving one’s domain on the Sabbath is a transgression punishable in court. But the institution of eruv certainly is a rabbinic interpretation of the rules.. Rebbi Samuel bar Sosarta said, they treated eruv as a doubt involving a deaf-mute person¹³²In the interpretation of biblical prohibitions, matters of doubt are treated differently when a person is involved who can be interrogated about the situation. Then the rules of resolution of doubts can be invoked only after the facts have been investigated. But if the person involved is deaf mute and unable to communicate by sign language the rules are applied immediately.. Rebbi Jeremiah asked, so far if it exists, or even if it was burned¹³³The preceding makes sense if the eruv still exists. But if it was burned (as mentioned in the Mishnah) it should be impossible to invoke a principle of permanence of the status quo ante.? Rebbi Yose said, I confirmed this following what Rebbi¹³⁴This is the text of L which probably is correct. In G: Rav. Hoshaia said: You must conclude that the boundaries of Sabbath domains are not clear in the words of the Torah. Rebbi Mana asked, it is accepted that 2’000 cubits is not clear¹³⁵The 2’000 cubits counted from the city walls are in imitation of the suburban space allotted to the levitic cities (Num. 35:5) where the Sabbath is not mentioned. The measure therefore has only rabbinic status. Babli 36a, Beṣah 36b. The Sadducee Damascus Document (CD A x) accepts a limit of 1’000 cubits (Num. 35:4) for humans and 2’000 cubits for animals (CD A xi) as biblical.. Are 4’000 cubits not clear? Rebbi Simeon bar Carsana in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: The only clear case among all of them is the domain of twelve mil of the camp of Israel¹³⁶This is the general tradition that the diameter of the encampment of the Israelites as described in Num. 2 was 3 parsah (12 mil or 90 itinerant stadia): Ševiˋit 6:1 (Note 28), copied in Gittin 1:2 (Note 94), Babli Berakhot 54b, Eruvin 53b, Yoma 75b..

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Previous Verse Full Chapter Next Verse