Eruvin 95

Chapter 95

א מחיצה של ברזל להפסיקו מחייך עליה ר' יוסי בר' חנינא
1 an iron wall<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Running across the pond from one side to the other, on the boundary line between the two Sabbath limits.');"><sup>1</sup></span> to divide it [into two independent sections].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that the water of the one section shall not be mingled with that of the other. The water of the pond does not acquire its own place but is deemed to be on a par with the feet of the people of that town within whose Sabbath limit it happens to be. As each section of the pond lies at the very end of the Sabbath limit of the town nearest to it the water of that section must not be carried beyond four cubits from the boundary line in the direction of the other town; and it is only an iron wall that in the opinion of R. Hiyya can prevent the water in the respective sections from mingling with one another. In the absence of such a wall the mingling of the waters of the two sections would on a Sabbath or a festival day prevent the inhabitants of either town from carrying them to their homes.');"><sup>2</sup></span>
ב מאי טעמא קא מחייך אילימא משום דתני לה כר' יוחנן בן נורי לחומרא ואיהו סבירא ליה כרבנן לקולא ומשום דסבר לקולא מאן דתני לחומרא מחייך עלה
2 R'Jose son of R'Hanina laughed at him. Why did he laugh?
ג אלא משום דתניא נהרות המושכין ומעיינות הנובעין הרי הן כרגלי כל אדם
3 If it be suggested: Because the latter taught this in agreement with R'Johanan B'Nuri<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who holds that objects of hefker acquire their place for the Sabbath within the town limit.');"><sup>3</sup></span> [that the law is] to be restricted,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In consequence of which he ruled that the water of the pond that was hefker may not be carried beyond the Sabbath limit of the respective towns.');"><sup>4</sup></span>
ד ודלמא במכונסין
4 while he is of the same opinion as the Rabbis<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who maintain that objects of hefker do not acquire their place for the Sabbath but are on a par with the feet of all men.');"><sup>5</sup></span> [that the law is] to be relaxed,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The water in consequence may be carried within the Sabbath limit of any man who wishes to use it.');"><sup>6</sup></span>
ה אלא משום דקתני צריך מחיצה של ברזל להפסיקו ומאי שנא קנים דלא דעיילי בהו מיא של ברזל נמי עיילי בהו מיא
5 [is it likely, it may be asked,] that because he is of the opinion that the law is to be relaxed he would laugh at any one<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'on it'.');"><sup>7</sup></span> who learned that it was to be restricted? - Rather say: Because it was taught: Running rivers and gushing springs<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which class a fish-pond is included.');"><sup>8</sup></span>
ו ודילמא צריך ואין לו תקנה קאמר
6 are on a par with the feet of all men.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 46a (q.v. notes) and cf. supra n. 4.');"><sup>9</sup></span> But is it not possible that he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Hiyya.');"><sup>10</sup></span>
ז אלא משום דקל הוא שהקילו חכמים במים
7 spoke of collected water?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is not included in the classes of water spoken of in the Baraitha cited.');"><sup>11</sup></span> - Rather say: Because he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Hiyya.');"><sup>10</sup></span>
ח כדרבי טבלא דבעא מיניה רבי טבלא מרב מחיצה תלויה מהו שתתיר בחורבה
8 taught: 'Requires an iron wall to divide it'. For why should not reeds be admissible?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As a partition between the two Sections of the pond.');"><sup>12</sup></span>
ט א"ל אין מחיצה תלויה מתרת אלא במים קל הוא שהקילו חכמים במים:
9 Obviously because the water would pass through them; but then, in the case of an iron wall too, the water might pass.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Beneath it.');"><sup>13</sup></span> But is it not possible that he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Hiyya.');"><sup>10</sup></span>
י וחכ"א אין לו אלא ארבע וכו': רבי יהודה היינו ת"ק
10 meant: 'Requires.' hence there is no remedy?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. only a wall which, like solid iron could not possibly be penetrated could enable the townspeople to use the water in the pond; and since such a wall is an impossibility none of them may use it.');"><sup>14</sup></span>
יא אמר רבא שמונה על שמונה איכא בינייהו תנ"ה יש לו שמונה על שמונה דברי ר"מ
11 - Rather say: Because the Sages have in fact relaxed the law in respect of water;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Allowing the use of any sort of partition, that is ten handbreadths high, however frail and penetrable it might be.');"><sup>15</sup></span> as R'Tabla [was informed].
יב ואמר רבא מחלוקת להלך אבל לטלטל דברי הכל ארבע אמות אין טפי לא
12 For R'Tabla enquired of Rab: Does a suspended partition convert a ruin into a permitted domain? And the other replied: A suspended partition can effect permissibility of use in the case of water only, since it is only in the case of water that the Sages have relaxed the law.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As a suspended partition though it cannot prevent the water from passing beneath it, is effective, so should a partition of reeds be. Thus R. Hiyya's demand for all iron wall caused R. Jose b. Hanina's laughter.');"><sup>16</sup></span>
יג והני ד' אמות היכא כתיבא
13 THE SAGES, HOWEVER, RULED: HE HAS ONLY FOUR etc. Is not R'Judah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who permits a distance of four cubits in any direction.');"><sup>17</sup></span> repeating the very view of the first Tanna?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' THE SAGES, who earlier in the Mishnah RULED: HE HAS ONLY FOUR CUBITS.');"><sup>18</sup></span>
יד כדתניא (שמות טז, כט) שבו איש תחתיו כתחתיו [וכמה תחתיו] גופו שלש אמות ואמה כדי לפשוט ידיו ורגליו דברי ר' מאיר ר' יהודה אומר גופו שלש אמות ואמה כדי שיטול חפץ מתחת מרגלותיו ומניח תחת מראשותיו
14 Raba replied: There is a difference between them, [for the first Tanna allows an area of] eight cubits by eight.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Four cubits in every two opposite directions. R. Judah, however, allows either four cubits in one direction or two cubits in two opposite directions.');"><sup>19</sup></span> So it was also taught: He has [the right to walk within an area of] eight cubits by eight; so R'Meir.
טו מאי בינייהו איכא בינייהו ארבע אמות מצומצמות
15 Raba further stated: They<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Meir and R. Judah.');"><sup>20</sup></span> differ only on the question of walking, but regarding the movement of objects both agree that it is permitted<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'yes'.');"><sup>21</sup></span>
טז אמר ליה רב משרשיא לבריה כי עיילת לקמיה דרב פפא בעי מיניה ארבע אמות שאמרו באמה דידיה יהבינן ליה או באמה של קדש יהבינן ליה
16 [along a distance of] four cubits but no more. Where in Scripture are these four cubits<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Within which every man is entitled to move on a Sabbath or a festival day.');"><sup>22</sup></span>
יז אם אמר לך אמות של קדש יהבינן ליה עוג מלך הבשן מה תהא עליו ואם אמר לך באמה דידיה יהבינן ליה אימא ליה מאי טעמא לא קתני לה גבי יש שאמרו הכל לפי מה שהוא אדם
17 recorded? - As it was taught: Abide ye every man in his place,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XVI, 29, dealing with movement on the Sabbath.');"><sup>23</sup></span> which implies within an area equal to 'his place'.
יח כי אתא לקמיה דרב פפא א"ל אי דייקינן כולא האי לא הוי תנינן
18 And what is the area of 'his place'? Three cubits for his body and one cubit for stretching out his hands and feet; so R'Meir.
יט לעולם באמה דידיה יהבינן ליה ודקא קשיא לך מאי טעמא לא קתני גבי יש שאמרו דלא פסיקא ליה משום דאיכא ננס באבריו:
19 R'Judah said: Three cubits for his body and one cubit to enable<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'as is sufficient'.');"><sup>24</sup></span> him to take up an object at his feet and put it down at his head.
כ היו שנים מקצת אמותיו של זה וכו': למה ליה למימר למה הדבר דומה
20 What is the practical difference between them?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Meir and R. Judah.');"><sup>25</sup></span> The practical difference between them is [that according to R'Judah the measurements of] the four cubits are to be exact.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to R. Meir, however, the measurements must be generous, more than one cubit being required for the stretching out of one's hands and feet.');"><sup>26</sup></span>
כא הכי קאמר להו רבי שמעון לרבנן מכדי למה הדבר דומה לשלש חצירות הפתוחות זו לזו ופתוחות לר"ה מאי שנא התם דפליגיתו ומ"ש הכא דלא פליגיתו
21 R'Mesharsheya requested his son: When you visit R'Papa, ask him whether the four cubits of which the Rabbis have spoken<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In connection with Sabbath movements (cf supra n. 7) .');"><sup>27</sup></span> are measured<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'we give him'. vnt');"><sup>28</sup></span>
כב ורבנן התם אוושי דיורין הכא לא אוושי דיורין:
22 by the arm<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' signifies both 'cubit' and 'arm', the standard cubit for the Sanctuary having been based on the length of Moses' arm (cf. Pes. 86a) .');"><sup>29</sup></span> of each individual concerned or by the standard cubit<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which was equal to six handbreadths.');"><sup>30</sup></span>
כג ושתים החיצונות כו': ואמאי כיון דערבי להו חיצונות בהדי אמצעית הויא להו חדא
23 used for sacred objects. If he tells you that the measurement is to be made by the cubit used for sacred objects, [ask him:] What should be done in the case of<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'what shall be about him'.');"><sup>31</sup></span>
כד אמר רב יהודה כגון שנתנה אמצעית עירובה בזו ועירובה בזו
24 Og the king of Bashan;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A Biblical giant (cf. Deut, 111, 11) .');"><sup>32</sup></span> and if he tells you that the measurement is to be made by the arm of each individual concerned, ask him: Why was not this measurement<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 334 n. 12.');"><sup>33</sup></span>
כה ורב ששת אמר אפילו תימא שנתנו עירובן באמצעית כגון שנתנוהו
25 taught among those which the Rabbis have prescribed in accordance with each individual? '<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Kel. XVII, 11, cf. supra 30b.');"><sup>34</sup></span> When he came to R'Papa the latter told him: 'If we had been so punctilious we would not have learnt anything.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' All their time would have been spent in hair splitting.');"><sup>35</sup></span> The fact is that the measurement is calculated by the arm of each individual concerned, and as to your objection, "Why was not this measurement taught among those which the Rabbis have prescribed in accordance with each individual", [it may be explained] that the ruling could not be regarded as definite since [even a normal person] may have stumped limbs'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'there is a dwarf in his limbs', that are out of proportion to his body. In such a case the standard cubit would obviously have to be applied. [The order of the argument is reversed in R. Hananel's text: Why was this measurement not taught among . . individuals. And should you argue that it is because there may be one who has stumped limbs, then it should have stated, except one who has stumped limbs? Thereupon R. Papa replied: 'If we had been so punctilious' etc. This reading removes the obvious difficulty involved in our text].');"><sup>36</sup></span> IF THERE WERE TWO MEN AND A PART OF THE PRESCRIBED NUMBER OF CUBITS OF THE ONE etc. What need was there for him<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Simeon.');"><sup>37</sup></span> to make the remark, TO WHAT MAY THIS CASE BE COMPARED? - It is this that R'Simeon meant to say to the Rabbis: 'Consider! TO WHAT MAY THIS CASE BE COMPARED? TO THREE COURTYARDS THAT ARE OPENING ONE INTO THE OTHER AND ALSO INTO A PUBLIC DOMAIN;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ct: relevant note Supra in our MISHNAH:');"><sup>38</sup></span> why then do you differ there<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By forbidding the movement of objects from any one courtyard into any other (cf. infra 49a) .');"><sup>39</sup></span> and not here? '<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case of three men spoken of in our MISHNAH:');"><sup>40</sup></span> And the Rabbis?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How, in view of this argument, can they maintain their apparently contradictory views?');"><sup>41</sup></span> There<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The case of the three courtyards.');"><sup>42</sup></span> the residents are many<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Were the residents of the outer courtyards permitted to have access to the middle one and vice versa, some of them might erroneously assume that the former may also have free access to one another and would this infringe the laws of 'erub.');"><sup>43</sup></span> but here<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case of the three men spoken of in our MISHNAH:');"><sup>44</sup></span> they are few.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And such an erroneous assumption (cf. prev. n.) on their part is unlikely.');"><sup>45</sup></span> BUT THE TWO OUTER ONES etc. But why?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Are the two outer courtyards FORBIDDEN ACCESS TO ONE ANOTHER?');"><sup>46</sup></span> Do not the outer ones, since they have joined in an 'erub with the middle one,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is now assumed that the 'erub in which the residents of both the outer courtyards have participated had been deposited in one of the houses of the middle one.');"><sup>47</sup></span> constitute one permitted domain?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which all are partners who may freely move their objects within it.');"><sup>48</sup></span> - Rab Judah replied: This is a case, for instance, where the middle one deposited its one 'erub in one courtyard and its other 'erub in the other courtyard.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' While the residents of the two outer courtyards deposited no 'erubs in the middle one. The residents of the latter, by virtue of their 'erubs, are regarded as residents of the outer courtyards as well as of their own, while the residents of the outer courtyards, having no 'erubs in the middle courtyard, cannot be regarded as its residents; and since these have in consequence no domain in common, they cannot be permitted access to one another.');"><sup>49</sup></span> R'Shesheth, however, replied: It may even be assumed that they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The residents of the two outer courtyards.');"><sup>50</sup></span> deposited their erubs in the middle one, [but this is a case, for instance,] where they had deposited it
Previous ChapterNext Chapter