Eruvin 40

וכן בגת

and the same [ruling applies to one drinking from, or] in a wine-press.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Shab. 11a, infra 99a; where wine may be drunk before it is tithed.');">¹</span> Now in the case of a human being it has been laid down that it is necessary for his head and the greater part of his body [to be in the domain from which he drinks], is it necessary in the case of a cow also<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where it stands in a public domain and its keeper in a private domain.');">²</span>

גבי אדם הא אמר דבעי ראשו ורובו גבי פרה מי בעינן לה ראשה ורובה או לא

that its lead and the greater part of its body [shall be in the domain from which it drinks] or not? Wherever [the keeper] holds the vessel<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From which the cow drinks.');">³</span>

כל היכא דקא נקיט מנא ולא נקיט לה לא תיבעי לך דבעי ראשה ורובה מלגיו כי תבעי לך היכא דנקיט מנא ונקיט לה מאי

and does not hold the animal there can be no question that it is necessary for its head and the greater part of its body to b within [the private domain].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since otherwise it might pull its head sideways or backwards and thus drag the vessel with the man into the public domain.');">⁴</span> The question only arises where he holds the vessel and also the animal.

א"ל תניתוה ובלבד שתהא הפרה ראשה ורובה מבפנים ושותה מאי לאו דנקיט לה ונקיט מנא לא דנקיט מנא ולא נקיט לה

Now what is the ruling? - The other replied: You have learnt it: PROVIDED A COW CAN BE WITHIN [THE ENCLOSURE WITH] ITS HEAD AND THE GREATER PART OF ITS BODY WHEN DRINKING. [This refers,] does it not, to a case where [the keeper] holds both the cow and the vessel? - No, [it may refer to one] who holds the vessel but not the cow.

וכי נקיט מנא ולא נקיט לה מי שרי והתניא לא ימלא אדם מים ויתן בשבת לפני בהמתו אבל ממלא הוא ושופך והיא שותה מאיליה

But is it at all permitted<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case of enclosures around wells, even where the animal's head and the greater part of its body were within the enclosure.');">⁵</span> [to give drink to a cow on the Sabbath] where one holds the vessel and not the animal?

הא אתמר עלה אמר אביי הכא באבוס העומד ברשות הרבים גבוה י' טפחים ורוחב ד' וראשו אחד נכנס לבין הפסין

Was it not in fact taught: A man must not<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In an enclosure round a well.');">⁶</span> fill [a vessel with water and hold it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'and give'.');">⁷</span>

גזרה דילמא חזי ליה לאבוס דמקלקל ואתי לתקוניה ודרא ליה לדוולא בהדיה וקא מפיק מרשות היחיד לרשות הרבים

before his beast<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' While it drinks, even (since the Baraitha bears on our Mishnah) where its head and the greater part of its body were within the enclosure. It must also refer to a case where the animal was not held by its keeper; for, if the prohibition extended to the case where the animal was held, there could be no point in ever requiring its head and the greater part of its body to be within the enclosure when one is always forbidden to hold the vessel for it. Our Mishnah, on the other hand, which permits the drinking refers to a case where the cow is held by its keeper.');">⁸</span> on the Sabbath but he fills [his bucket] and pours it out [into a trough] and the cow drinks of its own accord?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 21a.');">⁹</span>

וכי האי גוונא מי מיחייב והאמר רב ספרא אמר ר' אמי אמר ר' יוחנן המפנה חפציו מזוית לזוית ונמלך עליהן והוציאן פטור שלא היתה עקירה משעה ראשונה לכך

- Surely, in connection with this ruling<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the Baraitha cited.');">¹⁰</span> it was stated: Abaye explained: Here [we are dealing] with a manger that stands in a public domain, that is ten handbreadths high and four handbreadths wide<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that it has the status of a private domain.');">¹¹</span>

אלא זמנין דמתקן ליה והדר מעייל ליה וקא מעייל מרשות הרבים לרשות היחיד

and one of whose sides projects into [the area] between the strips of wood,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The cow eating from it at its other end in the public domain.');">¹²</span> a preventive measure<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not to hold the bucket of water over the top of the manger within the enclosure.');">¹³</span>

איכא דאמרי גבי אדם הא קאמרינן דסגי ליה בראשו ורובו גבי פרה מי סגי לה בראשה ורובה או לא

having been enacted against the possibility that the man might observe that the manger was damaged<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the section within the public domain.');">¹⁴</span> and, proceeding to repair it, would carry the bucket with him<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Forgetting, in his anxiety to repair the damage, that he carried it.');">¹⁵</span>

היכא דנקיט מנא ונקיט לה לא תיבעי לך דסגי לה בראשה ורובה אלא כי תיבעי לך דנקיט מנא ולא נקיט לה מאי

and thus carry an object from a private into a public domain.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The prohibition to hold the bucket for the cow is consequently not due to the reason previously assumed; and the ruling in our Mishnah that the cow is allowed to drink if its head and the greater part of its body were within the enclosure might, therefore, apply to a case where the hfu thb,vu man did not hold the animal. (Cf. Rashi and Tosaf s.v. and a.l.) .');">¹⁶</span> But does one incur guilt<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to Pentateuchal law.');">¹⁷</span>

אמר ליה תניתוה ובלבד שתהא פרה ראשה ורובה מבפנים ושותה מאי לאו דנקיט מנא ולא נקיט לה לא דנקיט מנא ונקיט לה

in such circumstances?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where one lifted up an object with the intention of putting it down in another part of the same private domain and forgetfully carried it out into a public domain.');">¹⁸</span> Has not R'Safra in the name of R'Ammi who had it from R'Johanan in fact said: If a man was removing his things<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the Sabbath.');">¹⁹</span>

והכי נמי מסתברא דאי נקיט מנא ולא נקיט לה מי שרי והתניא לא ימלא אדם מים ויתן לפני בהמתו אבל ממלא ושופך והיא שותה מאיליה

from one corner into another<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Within a private domain.');">²⁰</span> and then changed his mind and carried them out [into a public domain] he is exempt, since the lifting up [of the objects] was not originally intended for this purpose?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A sin-offering is incurred only where a man intended to do a certain work but forgot that the day was Sabbath or that such work was forbidden on the Sabbath. In the case of the bucket under discussion, therefore, since the keeper when he lifted it up, had no intention of carrying it out into the public domain, no sin-offering would be incurred even if he eventually did carry it out. Why then, should a preventive measure be enacted against a possible act which even if committed would involve no Pentateuchal obligation?');">²¹</span>

הא איתמר עלה אמר אביי הכא באבוס העומד ברשות הרבים גבוה עשרה טפחים ורוחב ארבעה וראשו נכנס לבין הפסין דזמנין דחזי ליה לאבוס דמקלקל ואתי לתקוניה ודרי ליה לדוולא בהדיה וקא מפיק מרשות היחיד לרשות הרבים

- Rather [this is the explanation:]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why the keeper may not hold a bucket of water for the animal to drink.');">²²</span> Sometimes he might, after he repaired the manger, carry [the bucket] back again<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Into the enclosure.');">²³</span>

וכי האי גוונא מי מיחייב והאמר רב ספרא אמר ר' אמי אמר ר' יוחנן המפנה חפציו מזוית לזוית ונמלך עליהן והוציאן פטור שלא היתה עקירה משעה ראשונה לכך

and thus he would carry from the public into a private domain.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which might involve him in the Pentateuchal obligation of a sin-offering, since the bucket was lifted up with the intention of carrying it from the public into the private domain.');">²⁴</span> Some there are who say:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra p. 141, n. 1 and text.');">²⁵</span>

אלא זמנין דמתקן ליה והדר מעייל ליה וקא מעייל ליה מרה"ר לרשות היחיד

In the case of a human being it had definitely been laid down that it was enough if his head and the greater part of his body [were in the domain from which he drinks]. Is it enough, however, in the case of a cow, that its head and the greater part of its body [should be in the domain from which it drinks] or not?

תא שמע גמל שראשו ורובו מבפנים אובסין אותו מבפנים והא איבוס כמאן דנקיט מנא ונקיט לה דמיא וקא בעינן ראשה ורובה

Wherever [the keeper] holds the vessel and also the cow, there can be no question that it is enough for its head and the greater part of its body to be [within the private domain].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since this case must have been referred to by our Mishnah: For if he did not hold the bucket, what need was there for the head etc. of the cow to be within the enclosure?');">²⁶</span> The question only arises where he holds the vessel but not the cow.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It being uncertain whether our Mishnah refers to a case where the cow was or was not held by its keeper.');">²⁷</span>

אמר רב אחא בר רב הונא אמר רב ששת שאני גמל הואיל וצוארו ארוך

Now what is the ruling? - The other replied: You have learnt it: PROVIDED A COW CAN BE WITHIN [THE ENCLOSURE WITH] ITS HEAD AND THE GREATER PART OF ITS BODY WHEN DRINKING. [This refers,] does it not, to a case where [the keeper] holds the vessel but not the cow? - No, [it may refer to one] who holds both the vessel and the cow.

ת"ש בהמה שראשה ורובה בפנים אובסין אותה מבפנים והא אבוס כמאן דנקיט מנא ונקיט לה וקא בעינן ראשו ורובו מאי בהמה נמי דקתני גמל

And this may also be justified logically; for if he held the vessel only and not the cow, would [the supply of the water have been] permitted seeing that it was in fact taught: A man must not fill [a vessel with] water to hold it before his beast [on the Sabbath],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So MS.M.');">²⁸</span> but he fills [his bucket] and pours it out [into a trough] and the cow drinks of its own accord?

והתניא בהמה והתניא גמל

Surely, in connection with this ruling it was stated: Abaye explained: Here [we are dealing] with a manger that stands in a public domain, that is ten handbreadths high and four handbreadths wide, and one of whose sides projects into [an area] between the strips of wood [where it is possible] that the man might sometimes observe that the manger was damaged and, proceeding to repair it, would carry the bucket with him and thus carry an object from a private into a public domain. Does one, however, incur guilt in such circumstances?

מידי גבי הדדי תניא תנ"ה ר"א אוסר בגמל הואיל וצוארו ארוך

Has not R'Safra in the name of R'Ammi who had it from R'Johanan in fact said: If a man was removing his things from one corner into another and then changed his mind and carried them out [into a public domain] he is exempt, since the lifting up [of the objects] was not originally intended for this purpose? - Rather, [this is the explanation:] Sometimes he might, after he had repaired the manger, carry [the bucket] back again, and would thus carry from the public into a private domain. Come and hear: A camel whose head and the greater part of its body is within [a private domain] may be crammed within [that domain].

א"ר יצחק בר אדא לא הותרו פסי ביראות אלא לעולי רגלים בלבד והתניא לא הותרו פסי ביראות אלא לגבי בהמה בלבד מאי בהמה בהמת עולי רגלים אבל אדם

Now is not the act of cramming, the same as holding the bucket and the animal,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it is impossible to cram unless one holds the animal's neck.');">²⁹</span> and yet it is required that its head and the greater part of its body [shall be within the private domain].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Would not this then provide a reply to the first enquiry in the first version?');">³⁰</span> R'Aha son of R'Huna replied in the name of R'Shesheth: A camel is different since its neck is long.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the greater part of its body were to remain in the public domain it might, by a turn of its neck, drag its keeper after it and thus cause him to carry the bucket from the private into the public domain. In the case of any other animal, however, whose neck is not so long this need not be provided against and a keeper might well be permitted to hold its bucket though the greater part of its body remained outside the private domain.');">³¹</span> Come and hear: A beast whose head and the greater part of its body is within [a private domain] may be crammed within [that domain]. Is not cramming the same as holding the bucket and the animal,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it is impossible to cram unless one holds the animal's neck.');">²⁹</span> and yet it was required that its head and the greater part of its body [shall be within the private domain].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Would not this then provide a reply to the first enquiry in the first version?');">³⁰</span> [It may be objected] that by the expression of 'beast', also<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'what (is the meaning of) beast that was taught'.');">³²</span> a camel [was meant]. Were not, however, both camel and beast separately mentioned?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'but it was taught beast' etc.');">³³</span> - Were they mentioned in juxtaposition?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' They were not. The author of the one Baraitha did not teach the other, and what the one described as camel the other described by the general term of beast.');">³⁴</span> So<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That a camel is subject to a law different from that of other beasts.');">³⁵</span> it was also taught: R'Eleazar forbids this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Holding a bucket of water to an animal's mouth in a private domain while its body remains without.');">³⁶</span> in the case of a camel, because its neck is long. R'Isaac B'Adda<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Var. lec.: Ammi (Asheri) . ohkdr hkug');">³⁷</span> stated: Strips [of wood] around wells were permitted to festival pilgrims<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' , lit., 'those who go up (to the Temple) to (celebrate) the major festivals'.');">³⁸</span> only. But was it not taught: Strips [of wood] around wells were permitted for cattle only? - By<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'what'.');">³⁹</span> cattle [was meant] the cattle of the festival pilgrims, but a human being<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who desires to drink from a well on the Sabbath.');">⁴⁰</span>