Eruvin 90

Chapter 90

א ובלבד שלא יוציא זה מתוך שלו לתוך של חברו
1 PROVIDED THE ONE DOES NOT CARRY OUT ANYTHING<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even with his hand, though his body remains within his own limit.');"><sup>1</sup></span> FROM HIS LIMIT INTO THAT OF THE OTHER.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the parts of the respective limits which do not overlap. A person's cattle or inanimate objects may not be moved on the Sabbath beyond the limit within which he himself is permitted to move (cf. Bezah 37a) .');"><sup>2</sup></span>
ב היו שלשה והאמצעי מובלע ביניהן הוא מותר עמהן והן מותרין עמו ושנים החיצונים אסורין זה עם זה
2 IF THERE WERE THREE MEN AND THE PRESCRIBED LIMIT OF THE MIDDLE ONE OVERLAPPED WITH THE RESPECTIVE LIMITS OF THE OTHERS,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' While the limits of the latter did not overlap each other; where, for instance, the distance between the positions of the two men at the extremities was eight cubits and that between either of them and the middle one was six cubits.');"><sup>3</sup></span> HE IS PERMITTED TO EAT WITH EITHER OF THEM<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the overlapping spaces that are respectively common to him and to them.');"><sup>4</sup></span>
ג אמר רבי שמעון למה הדבר דומה לשלש חצירות הפתוחות זו לזו ופתוחות לרשות הרבים עירבו שתים עם האמצעית היא מותרת עמהן והם מותרות עמה ושתים החיצונות אסורות זו עם זו:
3 AND EITHER OF THEM IS PERMITTED TO EAT WITH HIM,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the overlapping spaces that are respectively common to him and to them.');"><sup>4</sup></span> BUT THE TWO OUTER PERSONS ARE FORBIDDEN TO EAT WITH ONE ANOTHER.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since they have no ground in common.');"><sup>5</sup></span>
ד <big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> בעי רבא מאי קסבר ר' יוחנן בן נורי מסבר קא סבר חפצי הפקר קונין שביתה
4 R'SIMEON REMARKED: TO WHAT MAY THIS CASE BE COMPARED? TO THREE COURTYARDS THAT OPEN ONE INTO THE OTHER AND ALSO INTO A PUBLIC DOMAIN,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that each is self contained. Courtyards that open into one another and have no direct exit into a public domain, being interdependent, are forbidden domains as regards movement on the Sabbath except where the residents joined in a common 'erub.');"><sup>6</sup></span>
ה ובדין הוא דליפלוג בכלים והא דקמיפלגי באדם להודיעך כוחן דרבנן דאע"ג דאיכא למימר הואיל וניעור קנה ישן נמי קנה קמ"ל דלא
5 WHERE, IF THE TWO OUTER ONES MADE AN 'ERUB WITH THE MIDDLE ONE,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Through their communicating doors respectively.');"><sup>7</sup></span> IT<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The middle courtyard.');"><sup>8</sup></span>
ו או דילמא קסבר ר' יוחנן בן נורי בעלמא חפצי הפקר אין קונין שביתה והכא היינו טעמא הואיל וניעור קנה ישן נמי קנה
6 IS PERMITTED TO HAVE ACCESS TO THEM AND THEY ARE PERMITTED ACCESS TO IT, BUT THE TWO OUTER ONES<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Having no direct communication with each other.');"><sup>9</sup></span> ARE FORBIDDEN ACCESS TO ONE ANOTHER'<big><b>GEMARA:</b></big>
ז אמר רב יוסף ת"ש גשמים שירדו מעי"ט יש להן אלפים אמה לכל רוח בי"ט הרי הן כרגלי כל אדם
7 Raba enquired: What is R'Johanan B'Nuri's view? Does he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In laying down in the first clause of our Mishnah that the man is ENTITLED TO MOVE WITHIN TWO THOUSAND CUBITS.');"><sup>10</sup></span>
ח אי אמרת בשלמא קסבר רבי יוחנן בן נורי חפצי הפקר קונין שביתה הא מני ר' יוחנן היא
8 hold that ownerless objects<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whose radius of movement cannot obviously be determined, as in the case of owned property, by the intentions of an owner.');"><sup>11</sup></span> do acquire their place in respect of the Sabbath,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. that no one even with an 'erub may move them from that position beyond a distance of two thousand cubits.');"><sup>12</sup></span>
ט אלא אי אמרת חפצי הפקר אין קונין שביתה הא מני לא רבי יוחנן ולא רבנן
9 and consequently, it would have been proper that he should express his disagreement [with the Sages] in respect of inanimate objects<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'vessels', that are ownerless. A man asleep being unable to think, is, in respect of intention to spend the Sabbath in a particular spot, like ownerless objects that have no owner by whose intention their place for the Sabbath could be determined.');"><sup>13</sup></span> and the only reason why [he and the Sages] expressed their dispute in connection with a human being was to inform you how far the view of the Rabbis extends, viz. , that although<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case of a human being.');"><sup>14</sup></span>
י יתיב אביי וקאמר לה להא שמעתא א"ל רב ספרא לאביי ודילמא בגשמים הסמוכין לעיר עסקינן ואנשי אותה העיר דעתם עילייהו
10 it might be argued, 'Since a man who is awake acquires his place a man asleep should also acquire his place', hence we were informed that no [such argument is admissible];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the Sages still maintain that a man asleep does not acquire his place for the Sabbath.');"><sup>15</sup></span> or is it likely that R'Johanan B'Nuri holds that elsewhere ownerless objects do not acquire their place in respect of the Sabbath and the reason for his ruling<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In laying down in the first clause of our Mishnah that the man is ENTITLED TO MOVE WITHIN TWO THOUSAND CUBITS.');"><sup>10</sup></span>
יא אמר ליה לא ס"ד דתנן בור של יחיד כרגלי יחיד ושל אותה העיר כרגלי אותה העיר ושל עולי בבל כרגלי הממלא
11 here is this: Since a man awake acquires his place so does also a man asleep? - R'Joseph replied: Come and hear: If rain fell on the eve of a festival the water<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since at the time the festival began it was already on the ground.');"><sup>16</sup></span> may be carried within a radius of two thousand cubits In any direction,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From the spot where it fell; because it acquired, so to speak, its place when the Sabbath had begun (cf. prev. note) .');"><sup>17</sup></span>
יב ותניא בור של שבטים יש להן אלפים אמה לכל רוח קשיין אהדדי
12 but if it fell on a festival day<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that it could not acquire any place on the ground at the time the festival began.');"><sup>18</sup></span> the water is on a par with the feet of every man.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., it may be carried in a radius within which any man who uses it may himself move.');"><sup>19</sup></span>
יג אלא לאו ש"מ הא רבי יוחנן בן נורי הא רבנן
13 Now if you grant that R'Johanan B'Nuri is of the opinion that ownerless objects acquire their place in respect of the Sabbath this ruling,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That if rain fell on the eve of a festival the water may be carried only within a radius of two thousand cubits from the spot on which it fell.');"><sup>20</sup></span> you may say, represents the view of R'Johanan;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to which rain water, like ownerless objects, acquires its place in respect of the Sabbath.');"><sup>21</sup></span>
יד כי אתא לקמיה דרב יוסף א"ל הכי קאמר רב ספרא והכי אהדרי ליה אמר ליה ואמאי לא תימא ליה מגופה אי סלקא דעתך גשמים הסמוכין לעיר עסקינן האי יש להן אלפים אמה לכל רוח
14 but if you contend that<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the opinion of R. Johanan.');"><sup>22</sup></span> ownerless objects do not acquire their place in respect of the Sabbath, whose view, [it may be asked], is here<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That if rain fell on the eve of a festival the water may be carried only within a radius of two thousand cubits from the spot on which it fell.');"><sup>20</sup></span>
טו הא כרגלי אנשי אותה העיר מיבעיא ליה:
15 represented? Is it neither that of.
טז אמר מר ביום טוב הרי הן כרגלי כל אדם ואמאי ליקני שביתה באוקיינוס
16 R'Johanan nor that of t Rabbis? Abaye sat at his studies and discoursed on this subject<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The authorship of the Baraitha just cited and discussed.');"><sup>23</sup></span>
יז לימא דלא כרבי אליעזר דאי כר' אליעזר הא אמר כל העולם כולו ממי אוקיינוס הוא שותה
17 when R'Safra said to him: Is it not possible that we are dealing<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra n. 1.');"><sup>24</sup></span> here with a case where the rain fell near a town and the townspeople relied on that rain?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For their water supply. As it was the townspeople's intention to use the water the latter rightly acquires the place on which it fell. The Baraitha, therefore, could provide no proof that objects having no owner can also acquire their place for the Sabbath.');"><sup>25</sup></span>
יח אמר ר' יצחק הכא בעבים שנתקשרו מערב יום טוב עסקינן
18 - This,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Safra's suggestion.');"><sup>26</sup></span> the other replied, cannot be entertained at all.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because on account of the following apparently contradictory rulings one is driven to the conclusion that R. Johanan must be of the opinion that ownerless objects do acquire this place.');"><sup>27</sup></span>
יט ודילמא הנך אזלי והנך אחריני נינהו דאית להו סימנא בגוייהו
19 For we learned: A cistern belonging to an individual person is on a par with that individual's feet,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Should another person draw the water on a Sabbath or a festival day he may not carry it beyond the radius within which the owner of the cistern may move.');"><sup>28</sup></span> and one belonging to a town is on a par with the feet of the people of that town,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A radius of two thousand cubits in any direction from the town.');"><sup>29</sup></span>
כ ואיבעית אימא הוי ספק דדבריהם וספק דדבריהם להקל
20 and one used by the Babylonian pilgrims<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On their way to Jerusalem.');"><sup>30</sup></span> is<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it was at the disposal of anyone who cared to use it and had the status of ownerless property.');"><sup>31</sup></span>
כא וליקני שביתה בעבים תיפשוט מינה דאין תחומין למעלה מי' דאי יש תחומין ליקני שביתה בעבים
21 on a par with the feet of any man who draws the water.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because ownerless objects are acquired by the man who first lifts them up. Should the man who first drew the water subsequently give it to another person its movements would nevertheless be restricted to the radius within which the first man may move. Thus it follows that ownerless objects do not acquire their place for the Sabbath.');"><sup>32</sup></span> Now it was also taught: 'The water of a cistern Used by the tribes<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the pilgrims on their way to the Holy City.');"><sup>33</sup></span>
כב לעולם אימא לך יש תחומין ומיא בעיבא מיבלע בליעי
22 may be moved within a radius of two thousand cubits in any direction'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From its place. Which proves that ownerless objects do acquire their place for the Sabbath.');"><sup>34</sup></span> Are not [then] the two rulings mutually contradictory?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra p. 316, n. 13 and prev. note.');"><sup>35</sup></span> Consequently<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In order to remove the apparent contradiction.');"><sup>36</sup></span> it must be conceded that the latter represents the view of R'Johanan while the former represents that of the Rabbis. When he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Abaye.');"><sup>37</sup></span> came to R'Joseph and told him such and such a thing said R'Safra and such and such did I reply, the other remarked: 'Why did you not argue with him from that very statement:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which R. Joseph cited supra.');"><sup>38</sup></span> If it could be entertained that we were dealing with a case where the rain fell near a town then, instead of ruling that the water may be moved within a distance of two thousand cubits in any direction,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From the spot on which it fell.');"><sup>39</sup></span> should it not have been ruled that it was on a par with the feet of the people of that town? '<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of course it should. The ruling consequently proves that R. Safra's suggestion is unacceptable.');"><sup>40</sup></span> The Master said: 'If [it fell] on a festival day the water is on a par with the feet of every man'. But why? Should not the rain water acquire its place for the Sabbath in the ocean?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where it was at the time the festival began before it was converted into cloud. As it was carried on the festival in the form of cloud beyond its Sabbath limit its movements should be restricted to a radius of four cubits only.');"><sup>41</sup></span> Must it then be assumed<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the water may be moved within a radius of two thousand cubits.');"><sup>42</sup></span> that this ruling is not in agreement with the view of R'Eliezer? For if it were in agreement with R'Eliezer [the objection would arise:] Did he not state that all the world drinks from the water of the ocean? - R'Isaac replied: Here we are dealing with a case where the clouds were formed on the eve of the festival.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that the water had left the ocean before the festival began.');"><sup>43</sup></span> But is it not possible that those<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The clouds that were seen on the festival eve.');"><sup>44</sup></span> moved away and these<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That released the rain on the festival.');"><sup>45</sup></span> are others?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That were formed after the festival had begun from the water that was still in the ocean at the time the festival had set in (cf. supra n. 7) .');"><sup>46</sup></span> - It is a case where one can recognize them by some identification mark. And if you prefer I might reply: This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whether the clouds on the festival day are identical with those that were on the horizon on the eve of the festival or not.');"><sup>47</sup></span> is a matter of doubt in respect of a Rabbinical law and in any such doubt a lenient ruling is adopted.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It may in consequence be properly assumed that the clouds were the same on both days.');"><sup>48</sup></span> But why should not the water acquire its place for the Sabbath in the clouds?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where it presumably was at the time the festival began. The movement of the water should consequently be restricted to a radius of four cubits.');"><sup>49</sup></span> May it then be derived from this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it was ruled that the water was on a par with the feet of every man.');"><sup>50</sup></span> that the law of the Sabbath limits does not apply to the air above a height often handbreadths, for if the law of Sabbath limits were at that height applicable the water should have acquired its place for the Sabbath in the clouds? - I may in fact maintain that the law of Sabbath limits is applicable [even at the height mentioned] but the water is absorbed in clouds.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As it is not exposed it is regarded as non-existent and cannot consequently acquire its place for the Sabbath before it reaches the ground in the form of water.');"><sup>51</sup></span>
Previous ChapterNext Chapter