Shabbat 261

בתים וחצרות פתוחין לתוכו והכא בתים איכא חצרות ליכא כי לא עירבו נמי ליחזינהו להני בתים כמאן דסתימי דמו וחצרות איכא ובתים ליכא

houses and courtyards<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., two courtyards with two houses opening into each. V. 'Er. 5a and 73b. ');">¹</span> open into it, whereas here we have houses but not courtyards?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And for this reason when the courtyards are combined with the houses it is not permissible to carry save within four cubits. ');">²</span> Then even if they are not combined, let us regard these houses as though closed [up],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since one cannot carry from the houses into the alley on account of the intervening courtyards. [The courtyards were in front of the houses.] ');">³</span>

אפשר דמבטלי ליה רשותא דכולהו לגבי חד סוף סוף בית איכא בתים ליכא

so we have courtyards but not houses? — They can all renounce<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'annul'. ');">⁴</span> their rights in favour of one.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The tenants of all the houses save one can renounce their rights in the courtyard in his favour; the courtyard is then his, and he may carry from his house into it. ');">⁵</span> But even so, we have a house, but not houses?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whereas Rab needs at least two houses, v. p, 654, n. 8. ');">⁶</span>

אפשר דמצפרא ועד פלגא דיומא לגבי חד מפלגיה דיומא ולפניא לגבי חד סוף סוף בעידנא דאיתיה להאי ליתיה להאי אלא אמר רב אשי מי גרם לחצרות שיאסרו בתים וליכא

— It is possible that from morning until midday [they renounce their rights] in favour of one, and from midday until evening in favour of another.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus we have houses. ');">⁷</span> But even so, when there is one there is not the other? — Rather said R. Ashi: What makes the courtyards interdicted [in respect of the alley]? [Of course] the houses; and these are non-existent.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rab holds ('Er. 74a) that a roof, courtyards, enclosures, and the alley are all one domain, and carrying is permitted from one to another, provided, however, that the houses are not combined with the courtyards, so that no utensils belonging to the houses are to be found in the courtyards which might then be carried into the alley. Hence the same applies to carrying in the alley itself: for if there are no houses at all a formal partnership is unnecessary, and carrying in the alley is permitted, just as from the alley into the courtyard. Since the houses are not combined with the courtyards and no utensils may be moved from the former into the latter, for all practical purposes the houses are non-existent: therefore one may carry over the whole of the alley itself. ');">⁸</span> R. Hiyya b. Abba said in R. Johanan's name: Not in respect of everything did R. Eliezer rule that the preliminary preparations of a precept<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As distinct from the precept itself. ');">⁹</span>

אמר ר' חייא בר אבא א"ר יוחנן לא לכל אמר ר' אליעזר מכשירי מצוה דוחין את השבת שהרי שתי הלחם חובת היום הן ולא למדן ר"א אלא מגזירה שוה דתניא ר' אליעזר אומר מניין למכשירי שתי הלחם שדוחין את השבת נאמרה הבאה בעומר ונאמרה הבאה בשתי הלחם מה הבאה האמורה בעומר מכשירין דוחין את השבת אף הבאה האמורה בשתי הלחם מכשירין דוחין את השבת

supersede the Sabbath, for lo! the two loaves<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which are offered on the Feast of Weeks, v. Lev. XXIII, 17. ');">¹⁰</span> are an obligation of the day,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the Feast of Weeks, and must not be postponed for the next day. ');">¹¹</span> yet R. Eliezer did not learn them<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That their baking supersedes the Sabbath; not the baking, but the offering 'unto the Lord' is the actual precept, the former being merely a necessary preparation. ');">¹²</span>

מופני דאי לא מופני איכא למיפרך מה לעומר שכן אם מצא קצור קוצר תאמר בשתי הלחם שאם מצא קצור אינו קוצר לאי אפנויי מופני מכדי כתיב (ויקרא כג, י) והבאתם את עומר ראשית קצירכם אל הכהן ביום הביאכם למה לי ש"מ לאפנויי

from aught but a <i>gezerah shawah</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. But if he held that all preparations supersede the Sabbath, the would not require the gezerah shawah in this particular case. ');">¹³</span> For it was taught, R. Eliezer said: Whence do we know that the preliminaries of the two loaves supersede the Sabbath? 'Bringing' is stated in connection with the <i>'omer</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');">¹⁴</span> and 'bringing' is stated in connection with the two loaves:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. vv. 15, 17. ');">¹⁵</span>

ואכתי מופנה מצד אחד הוא ושמעינן ליה לר' אליעזר דאמר מופנה מצד אחד למידין ומשיבין (ויקרא כג, יז) תביאו רבויא הוא

just as with the 'bringing' stated in connection with the <i>'omer</i>, its preliminaries<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., the reaping, grinding. and sifting; Men. 72a. ');">¹⁶</span> supersede the Sabbath, so with the 'bringing' stated in connection with the two loaves their preliminaries supersede the Sabbath. These must be free,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., from the day that ye brought (v. 15) and 'ye shall bring' (v. 17) must have no other purpose than this gezerah shawah. There are three views on this matter: (i) Both parts of the gezerah shawah must be free, otherwise it can be refuted if they are dissimilar in other respects; (ii) Only one part must be free; and (iii) Even if both parts are required for another teaching too, the gezerah shawah cannot be refuted. ');">¹⁷</span> for if they are not free one can refute [this analogy]: as for the <i>'omer</i>, [its preliminaries supersede the Sabbath] because if one finds it [already] cut,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But not for the express purpose of fulfilling the precept. ');">¹⁸</span>

למעוטי מאי אילימא למעוטי לולב והתניא לולב וכל מכשיריו דוחין את השבת דברי ר"א ואלא למעוטי סוכה והתניא סוכה וכל מכשיריה דוחין את השבת דברי ר"א ואלא למעוטי מצה והתניא מצה וכל מכשיריה דוחין את השבת דברי רבי אליעזר ואלא למעוטי שופר והתניא שופר וכל מכשיריו דוחין את השבת דברי ר"א

he must cut [other sheaves]; will you [then] say [the same] in the case of the two loaves, seeing that if one finds [the wheat therefore] cut he does not cut [any more]? in truth they are indeed free. [For] consider: it is written, then ye shall bring the sheaf of the first-fruits of your harvest unto the priest:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXIII, 10. ');">¹⁹</span> what is the purpose of 'from the day that ye brought'? Infer from it that it is in order to be free. Yet it is still free on one side only, while we know R. Eliezer to hold that where it is free on one side [only], we deduce, but refute? — 'Ye shall bring' is an extension.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since Scripture could write, and ye shall offer a new meal-offering unto the Lord out of your habitations etc. The extension embraces the preliminaries of bringing, and intimates that these supersede the Sabbath. ');">²⁰</span> What is it to exclude?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Johanan's statement that R. Eliezer did not rule that the preliminaries of all precepts etc. ');">²¹</span>

אמר רב אדא בר אהבה למעוטי ציצית לטליתו ומזוזה לפתחו תניא נמי הכי ושוין שאם צייץ טליתו ועשה מזוזה לפתחו שהוא חייב

Shall we say that it is to exclude the lulab,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. and Lev. XXIII, 40. ');">²²</span> surely it was taught: The lulab and all its preliminaries supersede the Sabbath: this is R. Eliezer's view! Again, if it is to exclude <i>sukkah</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. and ibid. v. 42. ');">²³</span> — surely it was taught: The <i>sukkah</i> and all its preliminaries supersede the Sabbath: this is R. Eliezer's view! Again, if it is to exclude unleavened bread, — surely it was taught: Unleavened bread and all its preliminaries supersede the Sabbath: this is R. Eliezer's view! If, on the other hand, it is to exclude the <i>shofar</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. and ibid. v. 24. ');">²⁴</span>

מאי טעמא אמר רב יוסף לפי שאין קבוע להם זמן אמר ליה אביי אדרבה מדאין קבוע להם זמן

surely it was taught: The <i>shofar</i> and all its preliminaries supersede the Sabbath: this is R. Eliezer's view! — Said R. Adda b. Ahabah: It is to exclude fringes for one's garment and <i>mezuzah</i> for one's door.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' These must not be inserted or affixed on the Sabbath. ');">²⁵</span> It was taught likewise: And they agree that if one inserts fringes in his garment or affixes a <i>mezuzah</i> to his door,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the Sabbath, ');">²⁶</span> he is culpable. What is the reason? R. Joseph said: Because no [definite] time is appointed for them. Said Abaye to him, On the contrary, since no time is appointed for them,