Eruvin 195:1

מני ר"ש היא דאמר כל דבר שהוא משום שבות אינו עומד בפני כתבי הקודש אימא סיפא רבי יהודה אומר אפילו אין מסולק מן הארץ אלא מלא החוט גוללו אצלו רבי שמעון אומר אפילו בארץ עצמה גוללו אצלו

who then, [it may be asked,] is the author?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of this ruling of our Mishnah according to which no preventive measure was deemed necessary. It cannot be R. Judah, since he permits the rolling back only where the end of the scroll does not touch the ground, but where it does, the rolling back is forbidden as a preventive measure against the possibility of doing so when both ends dropped from the reader's hands.');">¹</span> Obviously R'Simeon who ruled: NO PROHIBITION THAT IS DUE TO SHEBUTH RETAINS ITS FORCE IN THE PRESENCE OF THE HOLY WRITINGS;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. relevant notes in our MISHNAH:');">²</span> but then read the final clause: R'JUDAH RULER, EVEN IF IT WAS REMOVED FROM THE GROUND BY NO MORE THAN A THREAD'S THICKNESS HE MAY ROLL IT RACK TO HIMSELF.

רישא וסיפא רבי שמעון מציעתא רבי יהודה אמר רב יהודה אין רישא וסיפא ר"ש מציעתא רבי יהודה

R'SIMEON RULED: EVEN IF IT TOUCHED THE ACTUAL. GROUND, HE MAY ROLL IT BACK TO HIMSELF. Is it likely that the first and final clauses represent the view of R'Simeon while the middle one represents that of R'Judah? -Rab Rabbah replied: Yes the first and final clauses may represent the view of R'Simeon while the middle one represents that of R'Judah: Rabbah replied: We deal here with a threshold that was trodden upon [by the public] and in order [to avert] disrespect to the holy writings<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By leaving it in a place where it might be trodden upon.');">³</span>

רבה אמר הכא באיסקופה הנדרסת עסקינן ומשום בזיון כתבי הקדש שרו רבנן

the Rabbis<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even R. Judah.');">⁴</span> have permitted [to roll it back].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since only a shebuth is thereby affected. The threshold, however, cannot be compared to a roof where a preventive measure could well be enacted since in that case the scroll is not exposed to so much abuse.');">⁵</span> Abaye raised an objection against him:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rabbah.');">⁶</span>

איתיביה אביי תוך ד' אמות גוללו אצלו חוץ לד' הופכו על הכתב ואי אמרת באיסקופה נדרסת עסקינן מה לי תוך ד' אמות מה לי חוץ לארבע אמות

[If it rested] within four cubits<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the ground.');">⁸</span> one may roll it back to oneself, [but if it rested] without the four cubits one must turn it over with its writing downwards. Now if you maintain that we are dealing with a threshold that was trodden upon by the public<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And that, in order to protect the sacred scroll from abuse, a shebuth was dispensed with.');">⁹</span>

אלא אמר אביי הכא באיסקופה כרמלית עסקינן ורשות הרבים עוברת לפניה

what matters it whether the end of the roll rested within the four cubits or without the four cubits?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Surely none; for just as a shebuth was dispensed with for the reason given, in the case of the threshold where one end of the scroll is transferred from a public into a private domain, so it should also be dispensed with for the same reason in the case of carrying the end of the scroll along a greater distance than four cubits in a public domain, since one of the ends is in his hand.');">¹⁰</span> Rather, explained Abaye, we are dealing here with a threshold that was a karmelith<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One that was four handbreadths wide but less than ten handbreadths high.');">¹¹</span> in front of which passed a public domain.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And behind which was, of course, a house which is a private domain.');">¹²</span>

תוך ד' אמות דאי נפיל ומייתי ליה לא אתי לידי חיוב חטאת שרו ליה רבנן

[Hence it is that if the end of the scroll rested] within four cubits where, even if [all the scroll] had fallen down a one would have carried it back,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To the threshold.');">¹³</span> no obligation of a sin-offering would be incurred,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the prohibition to carry from a public domain Into a karmelith is only a shebuth.');">¹⁴</span> the Rabbis have permitted the man to roll it back;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' i.e., where an end is retained in the reader's hand, a shebuth to safeguard a shebuth was not considered necessary.');">¹⁵</span>

חוץ לארבע אמות דאי מייתי ליה אתי לידי חיוב חטאת לא שרו ליה רבנן

but where it rested without the four cubits in which case, if he had brought it back,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where the whole of [he scroll had fallen down and he carried it along a distance of more than four cubits in a public domain.');">¹⁶</span> he would have incurred the obligation of a sin-offering, the Rabbis did not permit it to him.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even where one end remained in his hand and only a shebuth is involved. To safeguard a Pentateuchal prohibition a shebuth was justifiably instituted.');">¹⁷</span> But if so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That according to R. Judah a preventive measure was enacted, even in the case of holy writings, against the possibility of the infringement of a Pentateuchal law.');">¹⁸</span>

אי הכי תוך ד' אמות נמי נגזר דילמא מעייל מרה"ר לרה"י וכי תימא כיון דמפסקת כרמלית לית לן בה והאמר רבא המעביר חפץ מתחלת ארבע לסוף ארבע והעבירו דרך עליו חייב

why should not a preventive measure be enacted, even [where the end of the scroll rested] within the four cubits, lest one night come to carry [the scroll]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., where both ends dropped from the hands of the reader into the public domain.');">¹⁹</span> from the public into a private domain?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. into the house behind the threshold.');">²⁰</span> And should you reply: Since a karmelith<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The threshold.');">²¹</span>

הכא במאי עסקינן באיסקופה ארוכה אדהכי והכי מידכר

intervened this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The possibility of carrying across It from the one domain into the other.');">²²</span> need not be provided against,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'we have nothing against It');">²³</span> did not Raba, [it may be objected,] state:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Shah. 8b.');">²⁴</span>

ואיבעית אימא לעולם באסקופה שאינה ארוכה וסתם כתבי הקדש עיוני מעיין בהו ומנח להו וליחוש דילמא מעיין בהו ברה"ר ועייל להו בהדיא לרה"י

if a man transferred an object from the beginning of four cubits<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In a public domain.');">²⁵</span> to the end of the four cubits, and the transfer was made above his head,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'the way above him', sc. he carried the object high in the air at a level above ten handbreadths from the ground, which is regarded as a free domain.');">²⁶</span> he is guilty of an offence?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Against the laws of carrying a greater distance than four cubits in a Public domain. This shows that an offence is not mitigated even though the object passed on its way through a free domain. Why then should the passing of the scroll across the threshold mitigate in any way the offence of carrying from a public into a private domain?');">²⁷</span>

הא מני בן עזאי היא דאמר מהלך כעומד דמי ודילמא זריק להו מזרק דאמר רבי יוחנן מודה בן עזאי בזורק

- Here we are dealing with all extensive<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'log'.');">²⁸</span> threshold<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The crossing of which, on one's way from the public into the private domain, would take some time.');">²⁹</span> in crossing which<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'in the meanwhile'.');">³⁰</span>

אמר רב אחא בר אהבה זאת אומרת אין מזרקין כתבי הקודש:

one is sure to recollect [to pause].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On it; and thus avoid the direct transfer from the public into the private domain. By making a pause on the karmelith the object is deemed to have been taken from the Public domain into it and from it into the private domain which is Pentateuchally permitted so that no sin-offering would be incurred even where the entire scroll had been carried in this manner.');">³¹</span> If you prefer I might reply: The fact is that we are dealing here with a threshold that was not extensive, but one usually looks through the holy writings before putting them away.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One would consequently pause for the purpose on the threshold and, by thus avoiding direct transfer from the public into the private domain, no obligation of a sin-offering would be incurred.');">³²</span> But why should not the possibility be taken into consideration that one might look through them<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The books of Scripture in the scroll.');">³³</span>

היה קורא בראש הגג וכו': ומי שרי והתניא כותבי ספרים תפילין ומזוזות לא התירו להן להפך יריעה על פניה אלא פורס עליה את הבגד

while in the public domain and then carry them<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even where the entire scroll had dropped into the public domain.');">³⁴</span> directly into the private domain?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus infringing a Pentateuchal prohibition.');">³⁵</span> - The author of this ruling is<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'whose (ruling) is this?'');">³⁶</span>

התם אפשר הכא לא אפשר ואי לא אפיך איכא בזיון כתבי הקודש טפי:

Ben 'Azzai who laid down<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In respect of the laws relating to carrying on the Sabbath.');">³⁷</span> that walking is like standing.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., ' (he who) walks is as (he who) stands', sc. since every step made represents a 'lifting up' of the foot from one spot and a 'putting down' of it in another spot, the very passing across the threshold constitutes a pausing on it; cf. Shab. 5b and Keth 31b (Sonc. ed., p. 172, n. 4) .');">³⁸</span> But is it not possible that he might throw<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From the public domain directly into the house.');">³⁹</span>

הופכו על הכתב והא לא נח [אמר רבא] בכותל משופע

them,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The books of Scripture in the scroll.');">⁴⁰</span> R'Johanan having stated: 'Ben 'Azzai agrees in the case of throwing'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That it is not like standing (Shah. 6a) . As in such a case a Pentateuchal law would be infringed where the entire scroll rolls out into the public domain, why was not a preventive measure enacted against this possibility even where only one end had rolled out?');">⁴¹</span> R'Aha<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' MS.M. and old ed. 'Adda'.');">⁴²</span>

[אמר ליה אביי] במאי אוקימתא למתניתין בכותל משופע אימא סיפא רבי יהודה אומר אפילו אינו מסולק מן הארץ אלא מלא החוט גוללו אצלו והא נח ליה

B'Ahabah replied: This proves that holy writings may not be thrown.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sof. III, 12.');">⁴³</span> IF HE WAS HEADING IT ON THE TOP OF A ROOF etc. But is this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To turn a holy scroll WITH ITS WRITING DOWNWARDS.');">⁴⁴</span> permitted.

חסורי מיחסרא והכי קתני במה דברים אמורים בכותל משופע אבל

seeing that it was taught: The writers of the scrolls of Scripture, tefillin or mezuzoth were not permitted to turn a skin<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'curtain',one of the sheets of parchment of which the large scroll is made up.');">⁴⁵</span> with the writing downwards,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'on its face'; to protect it from dust.');">⁴⁶</span> but a cloth must be spread over it?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sof. Ill, 14 and 16.');">⁴⁷</span> There<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the scribe's house.');">⁴⁸</span> this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To cover the writing with a cloth.');">⁴⁹</span> is possible whereas here<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the open, and where the exposed part of the scroll is rather large.');">⁵⁰</span> this is impossible; and if one were not to turn it over the holy writings would be exposed<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit 'there is'.');">⁵¹</span> to much greater abuse. HE MUST TURN IT OVER WITH ITS WRITING DOWNWARDS. But, surely, it has not, has it, come to a rest?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the public domain. Why then should it be forbidden to roll it back into the private domain seeing that such an act would not infringe even a shebuth?');">⁵²</span> - Raba replied: This is a case where the wall was slanting.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that the end of the scroll inevitably comes to rest on the slope.');">⁵³</span> Said Abaye to him: You have explained our Mishnah as referring<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'in what did you place our Mishnah?'');">⁵⁴</span> to a slanting wall; read them the final clause: R'JUDAH RULED, EVEN IF IT WAS REMOVED FROM THE GROUND BY NO MORE THAN A THREAD'S THICKNESS, HE MAY ROLL IT BACK TO HIMSElf, but, surely,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the wall was slanting.');">⁵⁵</span> I may ask, has it not come to rest?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It must have done. Why, then, did R. Judah permit it to be rolled back?');">⁵⁶</span> - Some words are wanting, the proper reading<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In our MISHNAH:');">⁵⁷</span> being as follows: This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The ruling that HE MUST TURN IT etc.');">⁵⁸</span> applies only to a slanting wall, but in the case