| { | |
| "title": "Mishnah Eruvin", | |
| "language": "en", | |
| "versionTitle": "merged", | |
| "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org/Mishnah_Eruvin", | |
| "text": [ | |
| [ | |
| "If an alleyway is enclosed on three sides with courtyards opening into it from three sides, and the fourth side opens into a public domain, it is prohibited by rabbinic law to carry objects in it on Shabbat. However, carrying in an alleyway under those circumstances is permitted if a cross beam is placed horizontally over the entrance to the alleyway. The mishna teaches that if the cross beam spans the entrance to <b>an alleyway</b> at a <b>height above twenty cubits, one must diminish</b> the height of the cross beam so that it is less than twenty cubits. <b>Rabbi Yehuda says: He need not</b> diminish it, since the cross beam enables one to carry in the alleyway even at that height. If the entrance to the alleyway is <b>wider than ten cubits, one must diminish</b> its width. <b>However, if</b> the entrance to the alleyway <b>has the form of a doorway,</b> i.e., two vertical posts on the two sides, and a horizontal beam spanning the space between them, <b>even if it is wider than ten cubits, he need not diminish</b> it, as it is then regarded as an entrance, rather than a breach, even if it is very wide.", | |
| "There is a basic dispute with regard to the method of <b>rendering an alleyway fit</b> for one to carry within it on Shabbat. <b>Beit Shammai say:</b> Both <b>a side post and a</b> cross <b>beam</b> are required. <b>Beit Hillel say: Either a side post or a</b> cross <b>beam. Rabbi Eliezer says:</b> Two <b>side posts</b> are required, one on each side of the alleyway. <b>In the name of Rabbi Yishmael, one student said before Rabbi Akiva: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel did not disagree about an alleyway that is less than four cubits</b> wide, as they both agree <b>that</b> carrying <b>is rendered permitted by either a side post or a</b> cross <b>beam. With regard to what did they disagree? It is with regard to</b> an alleyway that is <b>wider than four cubits, and up to ten</b> cubits wide; <b>as Beit Shammai say:</b> It requires both <b>a side post and a</b> cross <b>beam. And Beit Hillel say:</b> It requires <b>either a side post or a</b> cross <b>beam. Rabbi Akiva said</b> to the disciple: It is not so, as <b>they disagree</b> both <b>about this</b> case, i.e., an alleyway that is less than four cubits wide, <b>and about that</b> case, i.e., an alleyway that is between four and ten cubits wide.", | |
| "<b>The</b> cross <b>beam, which</b> the Sages <b>stated</b> may be used to render an alleyway fit for one to carry within it, must be <b>wide enough to receive</b> and hold <b>a small brick. And</b> this <b>small brick</b> is <b>half a large brick,</b> which measures <b>three handbreadths,</b> i.e., a handbreadth and a half. <b>It is sufficient that the</b> cross <b>beam will be a handbreadth in width,</b> not a handbreadth and a half, <b>enough to hold a small brick across its width.</b>", | |
| "And the cross beam must be <b>wide enough to hold a small brick</b> and also <b>sturdy enough to hold a small brick</b> and not collapse. <b>Rabbi Yehuda says:</b> If it is <b>wide</b> enough to hold the brick, <b>even though it is not sturdy</b> enough to actually support it, it is sufficient.", | |
| "Therefore, even if the cross beam <b>is</b> made <b>of straw or reeds, one considers it as though it were</b> made <b>of metal.</b> If the cross beam is <b>curved,</b> so that a small brick cannot rest on it, <b>one considers it as though it were straight;</b> if it is <b>round, one considers it as though it were square.</b> The following principle was stated with regard to a round cross beam: <b>Any</b> beam <b>with a circumference of three handbreadths is a handbreadth in width,</b> i.e., in diameter. ", | |
| "<b>The side posts</b> the Sages <b>spoke</b> of with regard to rendering an alleyway fit for one to carry within it, <b>their height</b> must be at least <b>ten handbreadths, and their width and thickness</b> may be <b>any amount. Rabbi Yosei says: Their width</b> must be at least <b>three handbreadths.</b> ", | |
| "<b>One may construct side posts from anything, even a living creature,</b> provided that it was properly attached to the entrance of the alleyway, <b>and Rabbi Yosei prohibits</b> using a living creature as a side post. The mishna continues with a similar dispute: Even a living creature <b>imparts ritual impurity</b> if it used as the <b>covering of a grave.</b> <b>But Rabbi Meir deems it pure.</b> Likewise, <b>one may write women’s bills of divorce on</b> anything, even a living creature. <b>But Rabbi Yosei HaGelili invalidates</b> a bill of divorce written on a living creature. ", | |
| "If <b>a caravan camped in a valley,</b> i.e., an open space not enclosed by walls, <b>and</b> the travelers <b>enclosed</b> their camp <b>with</b> partitions made of the <b>animals’ equipment,</b> e.g., saddles and the like, <b>one may carry inside</b> the enclosed area, <b>provided that</b> the resultant partition <b>will be a fence ten handbreadths high, and</b> that <b>there will not be breaches</b> in the partition <b>greater</b> than <b>the built</b> segment. <b>Any breach that is approximately ten cubits</b> wide <b>is permitted</b> and does not invalidate the partition <b>because it is</b> considered <b>like an entrance.</b> However, if one of the breaches is <b>greater than</b> ten cubits, <b>it is prohibited</b> to carry anywhere in the enclosed area.", | |
| "If a caravan is camped in a field, and the travelers seek to construct partitions to render the area fit for one to carry within it on Shabbat, <b>one surrounds</b> the area with <b>three ropes, one above another, and</b> a third <b>one above</b> the <b>other</b> two. One is permitted to carry within the circumscribed area <b>provided that there will not be</b> a gap of <b>three handbreadths between</b> one <b>rope and the next.</b> <b>The measure of the ropes and their</b> combined <b>thickness</b> must be <b>greater than a handbreadth, so that the entire</b> partition, consisting of three ropes and the empty spaces between them, <b>will be ten handbreadths</b> high. ", | |
| "Alternatively, <b>one</b> may <b>surround</b> the area <b>with boards</b> that stand upright, <b>provided that there will not be</b> a gap of <b>three handbreadths between one board and the next.</b> When the Sages issued this ruling, <b>they spoke</b> exclusively <b>of a caravan;</b> this is <b>the statement of Rabbi Yehuda,</b> who maintains that a partition of this kind, which consists of only horizontal or vertical elements, is permitted exclusively in exigent circumstances. Otherwise, full-fledged partitions are required. <b>However, the Rabbis say: They spoke of a caravan</b> in the mishna <b>only</b> because they spoke <b>in the present,</b> citing the most typical case. Those traveling in caravans were typically unable to erect full-fledged partitions, so they would surround their camps with ropes or boards. However, the <i>halakha</i> in the mishna applies in all cases. The mishna cites an additional dispute: <b>Any partition that is not</b> constructed <b>of</b> both <b>warp and woof,</b> i.e., vertical and horizontal elements, <b>is not a partition;</b> this is <b>the statement of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda.</b> He holds that the vertical boards and the horizontal ropes are not considered a partition, even in the exigent circumstances of a caravan. <b>However, the Rabbis say: One of the two elements,</b> either vertical or horizontal, is sufficient. The Sages <b>exempted</b> a soldier <b>in</b> a military <b>camp</b> in <b>four matters: One may bring wood</b> for kindling <b>from any place</b> with no concern that he is stealing wood from its owners; <b>and one is exempt from</b> ritual <b>washing</b> of the <b>hands</b> before eating; <b>and</b> one is exempt <b>from</b> the separation of tithes from <b>doubtfully tithed produce [<i>demai</i>],</b> i.e., produce purchased from an <i>am ha’aretz</i>, one who is not diligent in separating tithes; <b>and</b> one is exempt <b>from establishing an <i>eiruv</i>.</b>" | |
| ], | |
| [ | |
| "<b>One may arrange</b> upright <b>boards [<i>passin</i>] around a well</b> in the public domain in order to permit drawing water from the well on Shabbat. A well is usually at least four handbreadths wide and ten handbreadths deep. Therefore, it is considered a private domain, and it is prohibited to draw water from it on Shabbat, as that would constitute a violation of the prohibition to carry from a private domain into a public one. The Sages therefore instituted that a virtual partition may be built in the area surrounding the well, so that the enclosed area could be considered a private domain, thus permitting use of the well and carrying of the water within the partitioned area. In this specific instance, the Sages demonstrated special leniency and did not require a proper partition to enclose the entire area. For this purpose, it suffices if there are <b>four double posts [<i>deyomadin</i>] that look like eight</b> single posts, i.e., four corner pieces, each comprised of two posts joined together at right angles; this is <b>the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Meir says:</b> There must be <b>eight</b> posts that <b>look like twelve.</b> How so? There must be <b>four double posts,</b> one in each corner, with <b>four plain</b> posts, one between each pair of double posts. <b>The height</b> of the double posts must be at least <b>ten handbreadths, their width</b> must be <b>six</b> handbreadths, <b>and their thickness</b> may be even <b>a minimal amount. And between them,</b> i.e., between the posts, there may be a gap <b>the size of two teams [<i>revakot</i>] of three oxen each;</b> this is <b>the statement of Rabbi Meir.</b> <b>Rabbi Yehuda</b> disagrees and <b>says:</b> There may be a slightly larger gap, the size of two teams <b>of four</b> oxen each, and this gap is measured with the cows being <b>tied</b> together <b>and not untied,</b> and with the minimal space necessary for <b>one</b> team to be <b>entering</b> while the other <b>one is leaving.</b>", | |
| "<b>It is permitted to bring</b> the posts <b>closer to the well, provided that</b> the enclosed area is large enough for <b>a cow to</b> stand with <b>its head and the majority of its</b> body <b>inside</b> the partitioned space while <b>it drinks.</b> <b>It is permitted</b> <b>to distance</b> the boards from the well and expand the enclosed area by <b>any amount,</b> i.e., as much as one wishes, <b>provided that he increases the</b> number of upright <b>boards</b> between the double posts. ", | |
| "<b>Rabbi Yehuda says:</b> The partitioned area may be expanded <b>up to</b> an area of <b>two <i>beit se’a</i>,</b> which is an area of five thousand square cubits. The Rabbis <b>said to him: They only spoke of</b> an area of <b>two <i>beit se’a</i> with regard to a garden or an enclosure</b> used for storing wood, scrap, and the like <b>[<i>karpef</i>]. But if it was a pen [<i>dir</i>], or a stable [<i>sahar</i>], or a backyard, or a courtyard</b> in front of the house, <b>even</b> if it had an area of <b>five <i>beit kor</i></b> or <b>even ten <i>beit kor</i>, it is permitted. And it is permitted to distance</b> the boards and expand the enclosed area <b>by any amount, provided that one increases the</b> upright <b>boards</b> between the double posts.", | |
| "<b>Rabbi Yehuda says: If the path of the public domain passes through</b> the area of the upright boards surrounding a well <b>and obstructs it, one must divert</b> the path <b>to the sides,</b> so that the public will circumvent the enclosed area; otherwise, the partition is invalid and the enclosed area cannot be regarded as a private domain. <b>And the Rabbis say: One need not</b> divert the path of the public domain, for the partition is valid even if many people pass through it. In the case of <b>a public cistern</b> containing collected water, <b>as well as a public well</b> containing spring water, <b>and</b> even <b>a private well, one may arrange</b> upright <b>boards around them</b> in order to allow one to carry in the enclosed area, as delineated above. <b>But</b> in the case of <b>a private cistern,</b> there are two deficiencies: It belongs to an individual, and it does not contain spring water. Consequently, it is impossible to permit drawing from it on Shabbat by means of boards set up in the corners; rather, <b>one must construct for it a</b> proper <b>partition ten handbreadths high;</b> this is <b>the statement of Rabbi Akiva.</b> <b>Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava says: One may arrange</b> upright <b>boards only for a public well. But for the others,</b> that is, a public cistern or a private well, <b>one must set up a belt,</b> i.e., a partition consisting of ropes, <b>ten handbreadths high.</b> Such an arrangement creates a proper partition based on the principle of <i>lavud</i>, namely, that solid surfaces with gaps between them smaller than three handbreadths are considered joined.", | |
| "<b>And furthermore, Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava said:</b> With regard to <b>a garden or a <i>karpef</i>,</b> an enclosed courtyard used for storage, <b>that is</b> not more than <b>seventy cubits and a remainder,</b> a little more, as will be explained below, <b>by seventy cubits and a remainder, and is surrounded by a wall ten handbreadths high, one may carry inside it,</b> as it constitutes a proper private domain. This is <b>provided that it contains a watchman’s booth or a dwelling place, or it is near the town</b> in which its owner lives, so that he uses it and it is treated like a dwelling. <b>Rabbi Yehuda says:</b> This is not necessary, for <b>even if it contains only a</b> water <b>cistern, an</b> elongated water <b>ditch, or a cave,</b> i.e., a covered pit containing water, <b>one may carry inside it,</b> as the water bestows upon it the status of a dwelling. <b>Rabbi Akiva says: Even if it has none of these one may carry inside it, provided that it measures</b> not more than <b>seventy cubits and a remainder by seventy cubits and a remainder.</b> <b>Rabbi Eliezer says: If its length is greater than its breadth, even by one cubit, one may not carry inside it,</b> even though its total area does not exceed an area of two <i>beit se’a</i>, because in an area that was enclosed not for the purpose of residence, carrying is only permitted if the area is perfectly square. <b>Rabbi Yosei says: Even if its length is double its breadth, one may carry inside it,</b> and there is no need to be particular about a square shape.", | |
| "<b>Rabbi Elai said: I heard from Rabbi Eliezer</b> that one is permitted to carry in a garden or <i>karpef</i>, <b>even</b> if the garden <b>is</b> an area of <b>a <i>beit kor</i>,</b> i.e., thirty times larger than the area of a <i>beit se’a</i>. Incidentally, he adds: <b>And I also heard from him</b> another <i>halakha</i>: If <b>one of the residents of a courtyard forgot and did not join in an <i>eiruv</i></b> with the other residents when they established an <i>eiruv</i>, and on Shabbat he ceded ownership of his part in the courtyard to the other residents, then it <b>is prohibited for him,</b> the one who forgot to establish an <i>eiruv</i>, <b>to bring in</b> objects <b>or take</b> them <b>out</b> from <b>his house</b> to the courtyard; <b>however, it is permitted to them,</b> the other residents, to bring objects from their houses to that person’s house via the courtyard, and vice versa. We do not say that the failure of one resident to join in the <i>eiruv</i> nullifies the validity of the <i>eiruv</i> for the entire courtyard. <b>And I also heard from him</b> another <i>halakha</i>, <b>that one may fulfill his obligation</b> to eat bitter herbs <b>on Passover with <i>arkablin</i>,</b> a certain bitter herb. With regard to all three rulings, <b>I circulated among all</b> of Rabbi Eliezer’s <b>disciples, seeking a colleague</b> who had also heard these matters from him, <b>but I could not find</b> one." | |
| ], | |
| [ | |
| "<b>One may establish a joining</b> of houses in courtyards [<i>eiruv ḥatzerot</i>] in order to permit carrying on Shabbat in a courtyard shared by two or more houses, and one may establish a joining of Shabbat borders [<i>eiruv teḥumin</i>] in order to extend the distance one is permitted to walk on Shabbat; <b>and</b> similarly, <b>one may merge</b> courtyards in order to permit carrying in an alleyway shared by two or more courtyards. This may be done <b>with all</b> kinds of food <b>except for water and salt,</b> as they are not considered foods and therefore may not be used for these purposes. The mishna continues with two similar principles: <b>All</b> types of food <b>may be bought with</b> second-<b>tithe money,</b> which must be taken to Jerusalem and used to purchase food (Deuteronomy 14:26), <b>except for water and salt.</b> Similarly, <b>one who vows that nourishment</b> is prohibited to him <b>is permitted</b> to eat <b>water and salt,</b> as they are not considered sources of nourishment. It was further stated with regard to the laws of joining courtyards that <b>one may establish an <i>eiruv</i></b> <i>teḥumin</i> <b>for a nazirite with wine,</b> even though he is prohibited to drink it, because it is permitted to others. <b>And</b> similarly, one may establish an <i>eiruv teḥumin</i> <b>for an Israelite with <i>teruma</i>,</b> even though he may not eat it, because it is permitted to a priest. The food used for an <i>eiruv teḥumin</i> must be fit for human consumption, but it is not essential that it be fit for the consumption of the one for whom it is being used. <b>Summakhos,</b> however, <b>says:</b> One may only establish an <i>eiruv teḥumin</i> for an Israelite <b>with unconsecrated</b> food. It was additionally stated that one may establish an <i>eiruv teḥumin</i> <b>for a priest in a <i>beit haperas</i>,</b> a field containing a grave that was plowed over. There is doubt as to the location of bone fragments in the entire area. A priest is prohibited to come into contact with a corpse, and therefore may not enter a <i>beit haperas</i>. <b>Rabbi Yehuda says:</b> An <i>eiruv teḥumin</i> may be established for a priest <b>even between the graves</b> in a graveyard, an area which the priest may not enter by Torah law, <b>since he can interpose</b> between himself and the graves <b>and go and eat</b> the food that comprises the <i>eiruv</i> without contracting ritual impurity.", | |
| "<b>One may establish an <i>eiruv</i> with <i>demai</i>,</b> produce purchased from one who may not have separated the required tithes, <b>and</b> similarly, one may establish an <i>eiruv</i> <b>with</b> the <b>first tithe whose <i>teruma</i> has been taken</b> in order to be given to a priest, <b>and with</b> the <b>second tithe and consecrated articles that have been redeemed; and priests</b> may establish an <i>eiruv</i> <b>with <i>ḥalla</i>,</b> the portion of dough that must be given to a priest. <b>However,</b> one may <b>not</b> establish an <i>eiruv</i> <b>with <i>tevel</i>,</b> produce from which the priestly dues [<i>teruma</i>] and other tithes have not been separated, <b>nor with first tithe whose <i>teruma</i>,</b> which must be given to a priest, <b>has not been taken, nor with</b> the <b>second tithe or consecrated articles that have not been redeemed.</b> If <b>one sends his <i>eiruv</i> in the hands of a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor,</b> all of whom are regarded as legally incompetent, <b>or in the hands of one who does not accept</b> the principle of <b><i>eiruv</i>, it is not</b> a valid <b><i>eiruv</i>.</b> But <b>if one told another</b> person <b>to receive it from him</b> at a specific location and set it down in that spot, <b>it is a</b> valid <b><i>eiruv</i>.</b> The critical point in the establishment of an <i>eiruv</i> is that it must be deposited in the proper location by a competent person; but it is immaterial how the <i>eiruv</i> arrives there.", | |
| "If <b>one placed</b> his <i>eiruv</i> <b>in a tree above ten handbreadths</b> from the ground, <b>his <i>eiruv</i> is not a</b> valid <b><i>eiruv</i>;</b> if it is <b>below ten handbreadths, his <i>eiruv</i> is</b> a valid <b><i>eiruv</i>.</b> If <b>he placed</b> the <i>eiruv</i> <b>in a pit, even</b> if <b>it was a hundred cubits deep, his <i>eiruv</i> is</b> a valid <b><i>eiruv</i>.</b> If <b>one placed</b> his <i>eiruv</i> <b>on top of a reed or on top of a pole [<i>kundas</i>], when</b> the reed or pole <b>is detached</b> from its original place <b>and stuck</b> into the ground, <b>even</b> if it is <b>a hundred cubits high, it is a</b> valid <b><i>eiruv</i>,</b> as one can remove the reed or pole from the ground and take his <i>eiruv</i>. <b>If one put</b> the <i>eiruv</i> <b>in a cupboard</b> and locked it, <b>and the key was lost,</b> so that he is now unable to open the cupboard and access the <i>eiruv</i>, <b>it is</b> nonetheless a valid <b><i>eiruv</i>. Rabbi Eliezer says: If he does not know that the key is in its place, it is not</b> a valid <b><i>eiruv</i>.</b>", | |
| "If one’s <i>eiruv</i> <b>rolled beyond the</b> Shabbat <b>limit,</b> and he no longer has access to his <i>eiruv</i> since he may not go beyond his limit, or if <b>a pile</b> of stones <b>fell on it, or</b> if <b>it was burnt,</b> or if the <i>eiruv</i> was <b><i>teruma</i> and it became</b> ritually <b>impure;</b> if any of these occurrences took place <b>while it was still day,</b> prior to the onset of Shabbat, <b>it is not</b> a valid <b><i>eiruv</i>,</b> since one did not have an <i>eiruv</i> at twilight, which is the time one’s Shabbat residence is established. However, if any of these occurred <b>after dark,</b> when it was already Shabbat, <b>it is</b> a valid <b><i>eiruv</i>,</b> as it was intact and accessible at the time one’s Shabbat residence is determined. <b>If</b> the matter is <b>in doubt,</b> i.e., if he does not know when one of the aforementioned incidents occurred, <b>Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda say: This</b> person <b>is</b> in the position of both <b>a donkey driver,</b> who must prod the animal from behind, <b>and a camel driver,</b> who must lead the animal from the front, i.e., he is a person who is pulled in two opposite directions. Due to the uncertainty concerning his Shabbat border, he must act stringently, as though his resting place were both in his town and at the location where he placed the <i>eiruv</i>. He must restrict his Shabbat movement to those areas that are within two thousand cubits of both locations. <b>Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon</b> disagree and <b>say: An <i>eiruv</i></b> whose validity is <b>in doubt is</b> nevertheless <b>valid. Rav Yosei said:</b> The Sage <b>Avtolemos testified in the name of five Elders that an <i>eiruv</i></b> whose validity is <b>in doubt is valid.</b>", | |
| "<b>A person may make a condition with regard to his <i>eiruv</i></b> of Shabbat borders. In other words, he need not decide in advance in which direction his <i>eiruv</i> should take effect. For example, he may deposit an <i>eiruv</i> on each of two opposite sides of his town, <b>and say: If gentiles come from the east, my <i>eiruv</i> is in the west,</b> so that I can escape in that direction; and if they come <b>from the west, my <i>eiruv</i> is in the east. If they come from here and from there,</b> i.e., from both directions, <b>I will go wherever I wish,</b> and my <i>eiruv</i> will retroactively take effect in that direction; and <b>if they do not come</b> at all, <b>neither from here nor from there, I will be like</b> the rest of <b>the inhabitants of my town</b> and give up both <i>eiruvin</i> that I deposited, leaving me with two thousand cubits in all directions from the town. Similarly, one may say: <b>If a Sage comes from the east</b> and he is spending Shabbat beyond the boundaries of my town, <b>my <i>eiruv</i> is in the east,</b> so that I may go out to greet him there; and if he comes <b>from the west, my <i>eiruv</i> is in the west.</b> If one Sage <b>comes from here, and</b> another Sage comes <b>from there, I will go wherever I wish; and</b> if no Sage comes, <b>neither from here nor from there, I will be like</b> the rest of <b>the inhabitants of my town. Rabbi Yehuda says: If one of</b> the Sages coming from opposite directions <b>was his teacher, he may go</b> only <b>to his teacher,</b> as it is assumed that was his original intention. <b>And if they were both his teachers,</b> so that there is no reason to suppose that he preferred one over the other, <b>he may go wherever he wishes.</b>", | |
| "<b>Rabbi Eliezer says:</b> With regard to <b>a Festival adjacent to Shabbat, whether before it,</b> on a Friday, <b>or after it,</b> on a Sunday, <b>a person</b> may <b>establish two <i>eiruvin</i></b> of Shabbat borders [<i>teḥumin</i>] <b>and say</b> as follows: <b>My <i>eiruv</i> on the first</b> day shall be <b>to the east, and on the second</b> day <b>to the west.</b> Alternatively, one may say: <b>On the first</b> day it shall be <b>to the west and on the second</b> day <b>to the east.</b> Similarly, one may say: <b>My <i>eiruv</i></b> shall apply <b>on the first</b> day, <b>but on the second</b> day I shall be <b>like</b> the rest of <b>the inhabitants of my town,</b> or: <b>My <i>eiruv</i></b> shall apply <b>on the second</b> day, <b>but on the first</b> day I shall be <b>like</b> the rest of <b>the inhabitants of my town.</b> <b>And the Rabbis</b> disagree and <b>say</b> that such a split is impossible. Rather, <b>he either establishes an <i>eiruv</i> in one direction</b> for both days, <b>or he establishes no <i>eiruv</i> at all; either he establishes an <i>eiruv</i> for</b> the <b>two days, or he establishes no <i>eiruv</i> at all.</b> <b>What does one do</b> to establish an <i>eiruv</i> that will be valid for both the Festival and Shabbat? <b>He</b> or his agent <b>brings</b> the <i>eiruv</i> to the location that he wishes to establish as his residence <b>on</b> the eve of <b>the first</b> day, <b>and he stays</b> there <b>with it until nightfall,</b> the time when the <i>eiruv</i> establishes that location as his residence for the Festival, <b>and</b> then <b>he takes it</b> with him <b>and goes away,</b>so that it will not become lost before the following evening, in which case he would not have an <i>eiruv</i> for the second day. <b>On</b> the eve of the <b>second</b> day, he takes it back to the same place as the day before, and <b>he stays</b> there <b>with it until nightfall,</b> thereby establishing his residence for Shabbat, and then he may <b>eat</b> the <i>eiruv</i> <b>and go away,</b> if he so desires. <b>Consequently, he benefits</b> in that he is permitted to <b>walk</b> in the direction that he desires, <b>and he benefits</b> in that he is permitted to eat <b>his <i>eiruv</i>.</b> However, if the <i>eiruv</i> <b>was eaten on</b> the <b>first</b> day, <b>his <i>eiruv</i></b> is effective <b>for</b> the <b>first</b> day, <b>and his <i>eiruv</i> is not</b> effective <b>for the second</b> day. <b>Rabbi Eliezer said to them:</b> If so, <b>you agree with me that</b> Shabbat and a Festival <b>constitute two</b> distinct <b>sanctities,</b> as if not, the <i>eiruv</i> that went into effect during the twilight period on the eve of the first day should have remained in effect for both days, even if it was eaten during the first day. This being the case, you should also agree with me that one can make two separate <i>eiruvin</i> for the two days in two different directions.", | |
| "During the time period when the Jewish calendar was established by the court according to the testimony of witnesses who had seen the new moon, Rosh HaShana would be observed for only one day if witnesses arrived on that day, and for two days if witnesses failed to arrive and the month of Elul was declared to be an extended, thirty-day month. <b>Rabbi Yehuda says:</b> With regard to <b>Rosh HaShana,</b> if <b>one feared that</b> the month of Elul <b>might be extended,</b> and he wanted to travel in two different directions on the two days that could be Rosh HaShana, this <b>person may establish two <i>eiruvin</i> and say: My <i>eiruv</i> on the first</b> day shall be <b>to the east and on the second</b> day <b>to the west,</b> or alternatively: <b>On the first</b> day it shall be <b>to the west, and on the second</b> day <b>to the east.</b> Similarly, he may say: <b>My <i>eiruv</i></b> shall apply <b>on the first</b> day, <b>but on the second</b> day I shall be <b>like</b> the rest of <b>the inhabitants of my town,</b> or alternatively: <b>My <i>eiruv</i></b> shall apply <b>on the second</b> day, <b>but on the first</b> day I shall be <b>like</b> the rest of <b>the inhabitants of my town. And the Rabbis did not agree with him</b> that the two days of Rosh HaShana can be divided in such a manner.", | |
| "<b>And Rabbi Yehuda said further,</b> with regard to the two days of Rosh HaShana that one observes because he does not know which is the real day of the Festival: <b>A person may make a condition</b> with regard to <b>a basket</b> of <i>tevel</i> produce <b>on the first day of the Festival</b> and say as follows: If today is the Festival and tomorrow is an ordinary weekday I will separate the <i>teruma</i> and tithes tomorrow, and I have performed nothing today; if today is an ordinary weekday, I hereby separate the appropriate <i>teruma</i> and tithes now. <b>He may</b> then <b>eat</b> the produce <b>on the second</b> day of the Festival, since one of his two acts of tithing was certainly performed on an ordinary weekday. <b>And similarly, an egg that was laid on the first</b> day of the Festival <b>may be eaten on the second</b> day, since one of the days is certainly an ordinary weekday. <b>And the Rabbis did not agree with him</b> even with regard to these two days.", | |
| "<b>Rabbi Dosa ben Harekinas says: One who passes before the ark</b> in the synagogue and leads the congregation in prayer <b>on</b> the first day of <b>the festival of Rosh HaShana says: Strengthen us, O Lord our God, on this day of the New Moon, whether</b> it is <b>today or tomorrow. And</b> similarly, <b>on the following day he says: Whether</b> Rosh HaShana is <b>today or yesterday. And the Rabbis did not agree with him</b> that one should formulate his prayer in this conditional manner." | |
| ], | |
| [ | |
| "With regard to <b>one whom gentiles</b> forcibly <b>took him out</b> beyond the Shabbat limit, <b>or</b> if <b>an evil spirit</b> took him out, i.e., he was temporarily insane, and found himself outside the Shabbat limit, he <b>has only four cubits</b> that he may walk from where he is standing. If the gentiles <b>returned him,</b> or if he came back while still under the influence of the evil spirit, <b>it is as though he had never left</b> his Shabbat limit, and he may move about within his original limit as before. If the gentiles <b>brought him to a different city</b> that was surrounded by walls, or if they <b>put him into a pen or a stable,</b> i.e., animal enclosures, the Sages disagree. <b>Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya say: He may walk</b> about <b>the entire</b> city, as the whole city is considered like four cubits. <b>Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Akiva say: He has only four cubits</b> from where he was placed. The mishna relates: There was <b>an incident where</b> all of these Sages <b>were coming from Pelandarsin,</b> an overseas location, <b>and their boat set sail on the sea</b> on Shabbat, taking them beyond their Shabbat limit. <b>Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya walked</b> about <b>the entire</b> boat, as they hold that the entire boat is considered like four cubits, while <b>Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Akiva did not move beyond four cubits, as they sought to be stringent with themselves.</b>", | |
| "The mishna further relates that on <b>one occasion, they did not enter the port [<i>namel</i>] until after nightfall</b> on Shabbat eve. The others <b>said to Rabban Gamliel: What</b> is the <i>halakha</i> with regard to <b>alighting</b> from the boat at this time? In other words, were we already within the city’s limit before Shabbat commenced? <b>He said to them: You are permitted</b> to alight, <b>as I was watching, and</b> I observed that <b>we were</b> already <b>within the</b> city’s <b>limit before nightfall.</b> We acquired our resting place in the city during the twilight period. Therefore, it is permitted to walk throughout the city even after nightfall.", | |
| "With regard to <b>one who was permitted to leave</b> his Shabbat limit, i.e., he went out to testify that he had seen the new moon or for some life-saving purpose, <b>and they said to him</b> along the way: <b>The action has already been performed,</b> and there is no need for you to travel for that purpose, <b>he has two thousand cubits in each direction</b> from the location where he was standing when this was told to him. <b>If he was within</b> his original <b>limit,</b> it is considered <b>as if he had not left</b> his limit, and he may return to his original location. The Sages formulated a principle: <b>All who go out to</b> battle and <b>save</b> lives <b>may return to their</b> original <b>locations</b> on Shabbat.", | |
| "With regard to <b>a person who was sitting along the road</b> on Shabbat eve toward nightfall, unaware that he was within the city’s Shabbat limit, <b>and</b> when <b>he stood up</b> after Shabbat had already commenced, <b>he saw that he was near the town,</b> i.e., within its limit, <b>since he had not intended</b> to acquire his place of residence in the town, <b>he may not enter</b> it, but rather he measures two thousand cubits from his place; this is <b>the statement of Rabbi Meir.</b> <b>Rabbi Yehuda says: He may enter</b> the town. <b>Rabbi Yehuda said: It once happened that Rabbi Tarfon entered</b> a town on Shabbat <b>without intention</b> from the beginning of Shabbat to establish residence in the city.", | |
| "With regard to <b>one who was sleeping along the road</b> on Shabbat eve <b>and did not know that night had fallen, he has two thousand cubits in each direction;</b> this is the statement of <b>Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri,</b> who maintains that knowledge and awareness are not necessary for one to acquire residence, but rather, a person’s presence in a given location establishes residence there. <b>But the Rabbis say: He has only four cubits,</b> as since he did not knowingly acquire residence, he did not establish a Shabbat limit. <b>Rabbi Eliezer says:</b> He has only four cubits total <b>and he is in the middle of them,</b> i.e., he has two cubits in each direction. <b>Rabbi Yehuda says: He may walk</b> four cubits <b>in any direction he wishes. But Rabbi Yehuda agrees that if he selected for himself</b> the direction in which he wants to walk those four cubits, <b>he cannot retract</b> and walk four cubits in a different direction.", | |
| "With regard to a case where <b>there were two</b> people in this situation, positioned in such a way that <b>part</b> of <b>the</b> four <b>cubits of one were subsumed within the</b> four <b>cubits of the other, they may</b> each <b>bring</b> food <b>and eat</b> together in the shared area <b>in the middle,</b> <b>provided that the one does not carry</b> anything <b>from his</b> four-cubit limit <b>into that of his fellow.</b> With regard to a case where there <b>were three</b> people in this situation, <b>and</b> certain parts of the four cubits of <b>the middle one were subsumed within</b> the respective limits of each of <b>the others,</b> so that he shared a certain area with each of them, <b>he is permitted</b> to eat <b>with</b> either of <b>them, and they are</b> both <b>permitted</b> to eat <b>with him; but the two outer ones are forbidden</b> to eat <b>with each other,</b> since they share no common area. <b>Rabbi Shimon said: To what is this comparable?</b> It is like <b>three courtyards that open into one another, and</b> also <b>open into a public domain.</b> If <b>the two outer</b> courtyards <b>established an <i>eiruv</i> with the middle one,</b> the middle one <b>is permitted to</b> carry to the two outer ones, <b>and they are permitted to</b> carry to <b>it, but the two outer</b> courtyards <b>are prohibited</b> to carry from <b>one to</b> the <b>other,</b> as they did not establish an <i>eiruv</i> with one another.", | |
| "With regard to <b>one who was coming along the way</b> on Shabbat eve, <b>and it grew dark</b> while <b>he</b> was traveling, <b>and he was familiar</b> with <b>a tree or a fence</b> located two thousand cubits from his current location, and two thousand cubits from his house, <b>and he said: My residence is beneath</b> that tree, rather than in his present location, <b>he has not said anything,</b> as he did not establish a fixed location as his residence. If, however, he said: <b>My residence is at</b> the tree’s <b>trunk,</b> he acquired residence there, and he <b>may</b> therefore <b>walk from the place he is standing to the trunk</b> of the tree <b>two thousand cubits</b> away, <b>and from the trunk</b> of the tree <b>to his house,</b> an additional <b>two thousand cubits. Consequently, he walks after nightfall</b> a total of <b>four thousand cubits.</b>", | |
| "<b>If one is not familiar</b> with a tree or any other noticeable landmark, <b>or if he is not an expert in the <i>halakha</i>,</b> unaware that residence can be established from a distance, <b>and he said: My residence is at my</b> current <b>location,</b> then his presence at <b>his</b> current <b>location acquires for him</b> the right to walk <b>two thousand cubits in each direction.</b> The manner in which the two thousand cubits are measured is the subject of a tannaitic dispute. These cubits are measured <b>circularly,</b> i.e., as a circle with a radius of two thousand cubits; this is <b>the statement of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigenos. And the Rabbis say:</b> These are measured <b>squarely,</b> i.e., <b>as a square tablet,</b> with each side measuring four thousand cubits, <b>so that he gains the corners.</b> He is permitted to walk from the middle to the corners of the square as well, a distance of approximately 2,800 cubits.", | |
| "<b>And this is</b> the meaning of that <b>which</b> the Sages <b>said: The pauper establishes an <i>eiruv</i> with his feet,</b> i.e., one who does not have the bread required to establish an <i>eiruv</i> may walk anywhere within his Shabbat limit and declare: This is my residence, and his Shabbat limit is measured from that location. <b>Rabbi Meir said: We have</b> this leniency in effect <b>only</b> for <b>a pauper,</b> who does not have food for two meals. However, one who has bread may only establish residence with bread. <b>Rabbi Yehuda says:</b> This leniency is in effect for <b>both a pauper and a wealthy person.</b> The Sages <b>said</b> that <b>one establishes an <i>eiruv</i> with bread only</b> in order <b>to be lenient with the wealthy</b> person, <b>so that he</b> need <b>not</b> exert himself and <b>go out and establish an <i>eiruv</i> with his feet.</b> Instead, he can appoint an agent to place bread for him in that location. This, however, does not negate the option of personally going to that location in order to establish residence without bread.", | |
| "If <b>a person set out to go</b> on a Shabbat eve <b>to a town for which an <i>eiruv</i> is established</b> in order to go there on Shabbat, <b>and another</b> person <b>caused him to return</b> home, <b>he</b> himself <b>is permitted to go</b> to that city on Shabbat, <b>and</b> for <b>all the</b> other <b>residents of the town it is prohibited</b> to go there. This is <b>the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.</b> <b>Rabbi Meir says: Anyone who can establish an <i>eiruv</i>,</b> and negated his residence in his original place, <b>and did not establish an <i>eiruv</i>,</b> i.e., he did not at least state that he seeks to establish residence somewhere else, <b>is</b> likened to both <b>a donkey driver,</b> who walks behind the animal and prods it, <b>and a camel driver,</b> who walks before the animal and leads it, in the sense that he is pulled in two opposite directions. Due to the uncertainty with regard to the location of his Shabbat limit, his movement is restricted as though his residence was established in both his city and at a location along the way to the other city. He may not venture beyond two thousand cubits from either location.", | |
| "<b>One who</b> intentionally, not for the purpose of performing a mitzva, <b>went out beyond</b> his Shabbat <b>limit, even</b> if only <b>one</b> cubit, <b>may not reenter. Rabbi Eliezer says:</b> If he went out <b>two</b> cubits <b>he may reenter;</b> however, if he went out <b>three</b> cubits <b>he may not reenter.</b> With regard to <b>one</b> for <b>whom it grew dark</b> while he was traveling <b>outside the</b> Shabbat <b>limit</b> of the town where he was heading,<b>even</b> if he was only <b>one cubit</b> outside the limit <b>he may not enter</b> the town. <b>Rabbi Shimon says: Even</b> if he was <b>fifteen cubits</b> beyond the limit <b>he may enter</b> the town, <b>because the surveyors do not precisely demarcate the measures;</b> rather, they mark the Shabbat limit within the two thousand cubits, <b>due to those who err.</b>" | |
| ], | |
| [ | |
| "<b>How does one extend</b> the boundaries of <b>cities</b> in order to ensure that all its protrusions are included within the borders of the city? He extends a straight line across the edge of the city, and if <b>a house is recessed and</b> another <b>house protrudes,</b> or <b>a turret [<i>pagum</i>] is recessed and</b> another <b>turret protrudes</b> from that line, and similarly, if <b>there were remnants</b> of walls <b>ten handbreadths high,</b> <b>and bridges and monuments</b> over graves <b>in which there is a residence, one extends the measure</b> of that side of the city as though there were other structures <b>opposite them</b> in the adjacent corner of the city. <b>And</b> prior to measuring the Shabbat limit, <b>one renders</b> the city <b>like a square tablet so that it gains the corners,</b> although there are actually no houses in those corners.", | |
| "<b>One allocates a <i>karpef</i> to</b> every <b>city,</b> i.e., the measure of a <i>karpef</i>, which is slightly more than seventy cubits, is added to every city, and the two thousand cubits of the Shabbat limit are measured from there; <b>this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: They spoke of</b> the addition of <b>a <i>karpef</i> only</b> with regard to the space <b>between two</b> adjacent <b>cities.</b> How so? <b>If this</b> city <b>has seventy cubits and a remainder</b> vacant on one side, <b>and that</b> city <b>has seventy cubits and a remainder</b> vacant on the adjacent side, and the two areas of seventy-plus cubits overlap, <b>the <i>karpef</i> combines the two</b> cities <b>into one.</b>", | |
| "<b>And likewise,</b> in the case of <b>three villages that are</b> arranged as <b>a triangle, if there are</b> only <b>141⅓</b> cubits separating <b>between the two outer</b> villages, the <b>middle</b> village <b>combines the three</b> villages <b>into one.</b>", | |
| "<b>One may measure</b> a Shabbat limit <b>only with a rope fifty cubits</b> long, <b>no less and no more,</b> as will be explained in the Gemara. <b>And one may measure</b> the limit <b>only at the level of one’s heart,</b> i.e., whoever comes to measure the limit must hold the rope next to his chest. If <b>one was measuring</b> the limit <b>and he reached a canyon or a fence,</b> the height of the fence and the depth of the canyon are not counted toward the two thousand cubits; rather, <b>he spans it and</b> then <b>resumes his measurement.</b> Two people hold the two ends of the rope straight across the canyon or the fence, and the distance is measured as though the area were completely flat. If <b>one reached a hill,</b> he does not measure its height; rather, <b>he spans</b> the hill as if it were not there <b>and</b> then <b>resumes his measurement,</b> <b>provided he does not</b> thereby <b>go out beyond the</b> city’s Shabbat <b>limit,</b> as those watching the surveyor might mistakenly think the limit extends to that point. <b>If,</b> due to the width of the canyon or hill, <b>he cannot span it, with regard to this</b> situation <b>Rabbi Dostai bar Yannai said in the name of Rabbi Meir: I heard that one may pierce hills.</b> In other words, one measures the distance as if there were a hole from one side of the hill to the other, so that in effect, he measures only the horizontal distance and ignores the differences in elevation.", | |
| "One <b>may measure</b> the Shabbat limit <b>only with an expert</b> surveyor. If it is discovered that the surveyor <b>extended</b> the limit <b>in one place and reduced it in another place,</b> so that the line marking the Shabbat limit is not straight, <b>one accepts</b> the measurement of <b>the place where he extended</b> the limit and straightens the limit accordingly. Similarly, if the surveyor <b>extended</b> the limit <b>for one and reduced</b> it <b>for another, one accepts the extended</b> measurement. <b>And</b> furthermore, <b>even</b> a gentile <b>slave</b> and <b>even</b> a gentile <b>maidservant,</b> whose testimonies are generally considered unreliable, <b>are trustworthy to say: The Shabbat limit</b> extended <b>until here; as the Sages did not state the matter,</b> the laws of Shabbat limits, <b>to be stringent, but</b> rather <b>to be lenient.</b> The prohibition to walk more than two thousand cubits is rabbinic in origin and is therefore interpreted leniently.", | |
| "Although this chapter as a whole deals with <i>halakhot</i> governing the joining of Shabbat boundaries, this mishna returns to the <i>halakhot</i> governing a joining of courtyards. If <b>a private city,</b> which does not have many residents, grows and <b>becomes</b> a heavily populated <b>public</b> city, <b>one may establish a joining of the courtyards for all of it,</b> as long as it does not include a public domain as defined by Torah law. <b>And</b> if <b>a public</b> city loses residents over time and <b>becomes a private</b> city, <b>one may not establish an <i>eiruv</i> for all of it unless one maintains</b> an area <b>outside</b> the <i>eiruv</i> that is <b>like</b> the size of <b>the city of Ḥadasha in Judea, which has fifty residents.</b> Carrying within the <i>eiruv</i> is permitted, but it remains prohibited to carry in the area excluded from the <i>eiruv</i>. The reason for this requirement is to ensure that the laws of <i>eiruv</i> will not be forgotten. This is <b>the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Shimon says:</b> The excluded area need not be so large; rather, it is sufficient to exclude <b>three courtyards</b> with <b>two houses</b> each.", | |
| "<b>One who was to the east</b> of his home when Shabbat began, <b>and he had said to his son</b> before Shabbat: <b>Establish an <i>eiruv</i> for me to the west;</b> or, if he was <b>to the west</b> of his home <b>and he had said to his son: Establish an <i>eiruv</i> for me to the east,</b> the <i>halakha</i> is as follows: <b>If there is</b> a distance of <b>two thousand cubits from his</b> current location <b>to his house, and</b> the distance <b>to his <i>eiruv</i> is greater than this, he is permitted</b> to walk <b>to his house,</b> and from there he may walk two thousand cubits in every direction, <b>but it is prohibited</b> for him <b>to</b> walk to the spot where his son had deposited <b>his <i>eiruv</i>.</b> If the distance from one’s current location <b>to his <i>eiruv</i> is two thousand cubits,</b> and the distance <b>to his house is greater than this, he is prohibited</b> from walking to his house, <b>and he is permitted to</b> walk to the spot of <b>his <i>eiruv</i>,</b> and from there he may walk two thousand cubits in every direction. In other words, with regard to the Shabbat limit, one’s place of residence for Shabbat cannot be more than two thousand cubits from his physical location when Shabbat begins. <b>One who places his <i>eiruv</i> in the outskirts of the city,</b> i.e., within an area of slightly more than seventy cubits surrounding the city, it is as though <b>he has not done anything.</b> The two thousand cubits of one’s Shabbat limit are measured from the edge of the outskirts of the city even if there is no <i>eiruv</i>, and one therefore gains nothing from placing an <i>eiruv</i> within this area. If, however, <b>he placed</b> his <i>eiruv</i> <b>outside the</b> city’s <b>boundary, even</b> if he placed it only <b>one cubit</b> beyond the city, <b>what he gains</b> in distance through his <i>eiruv</i> on one side of the city <b>he loses</b> on the other side.", | |
| "<b>The residents of a large city may walk through an entire small city, and the residents of a small city may walk through an entire large city,</b> even if part of it is located more than two thousand cubits from their city. <b>How so? One who was in a large city and placed his <i>eiruv</i> in a small city,</b> or one who was <b>in a small city and placed his <i>eiruv</i> in a large city, may walk</b> through <b>the entire</b> city in which he placed his <i>eiruv</i> <b>and</b> another <b>two thousand cubits beyond it,</b> as the entire city is considered as though it were only four cubits. <b>Rabbi Akiva says: He has only two thousand cubits from the place of his <i>eiruv</i>,</b> as the actual area of the city is included in the calculation. ", | |
| "<b>Rabbi Akiva said to</b> the Rabbis: Do <b>you not concede to me</b> that <b>one who places his <i>eiruv</i> in a cave has only two thousand cubits from the place of his <i>eiruv</i>,</b> and that consequently the entire cave is not considered as merely four cubits? The Rabbis <b>said to him: When</b> does this apply? <b>When</b> the cave <b>has no residents. But</b> if <b>it has residents,</b> it is considered as though it were only four cubits, and <b>one may walk</b> through <b>all of it and</b> another <b>two thousand cubits beyond it. Consequently,</b> the <i>halakha</i> with regard to an <i>eiruv</i> placed <b>inside</b> a cave <b>is</b> sometimes <b>more lenient than</b> the <i>halakha</i> governing an <i>eiruv</i> placed in the area <b>above</b> the cave. If one places his <i>eiruv</i> inside a cave that has residents, he has two thousand cubits beyond the cave; if he places it above the cave, where there are no residents, he has only two thousand cubits from the place of his <i>eiruv</i>. <b>And as for one who is measuring</b> his Shabbat limit, with regard to whom the Sages <b>said</b> that <b>one gives him two thousand cubits,</b> that measurement applies <b>even if the end of his measurement terminates in</b> the middle of <b>a cave.</b> He may not walk further into the cave, even if the cave is inhabited." | |
| ], | |
| [ | |
| "<b>One who resides with a gentile in</b> the same <b>courtyard, or</b> one who lives in the same courtyard <b>with one who does not accept</b> the principle of <b><i>eiruv</i>,</b> even though he is not a gentile, such as a Samaritan [<i>Kuti</i>], <b>this</b> person <b>renders it prohibited for him</b> to carry from his own house into the courtyard or from the courtyard into his house, unless he rents this person’s rights in the courtyard, as will be explained below. <b>Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: Actually,</b> the gentile <b>does not render it prohibited</b> for one to carry, <b>unless there are two Jews</b> living in the same courtyard who themselves would <b>prohibit one another</b> from carrying if there were no <i>eiruv</i>. In such a case, the presence of the gentile renders the <i>eiruv</i> ineffective. However, if only one Jew lives there, the gentile does not render it prohibited for him to carry in the courtyard.", | |
| "<b>Rabban Gamliel said:</b> There was <b>an incident involving a certain Sadducee who lived with us in</b> the same <b>alleyway in Jerusalem,</b> who renounced his rights to the alleyway before Shabbat. <b>And Father said to us: Hurry and take out</b> your <b>utensils to the alleyway</b> to establish possession of it, <b>before he</b> changes his mind and <b>takes out</b> his own utensils so as to reclaim his rights, in which case <b>he would render it prohibited for you to</b> use the entire alleyway. <b>Rabbi Yehuda says:</b> Rabban Gamliel’s father spoke to them <b>with a different formulation,</b> saying: <b>Hurry and do</b> whatever <b>you must do in the alleyway</b> prior to Shabbat, <b>before he takes out</b> his utensils <b>and renders it prohibited for you to</b> use the alleyway. In other words, you may not bring out utensils to the alleyway at all on Shabbat, as the institution of an <i>eiruv</i> cannot be used in the neighborhood of a Sadducee. This is because, even if he renounced his rights to the alleyway, he can always retract and reclaim them.", | |
| "<b>If one of the residents of a courtyard forgot and did not participate in an <i>eiruv</i></b> with the other residents before Shabbat, and on Shabbat he renounced his rights in the courtyard to the other residents, <b>his house is prohibited</b> both <b>to him,</b> who forgot to establish an <i>eiruv</i>, <b>and to them,</b> the other residents, <b>to bring in</b> objects from the courtyard to his house <b>or to take</b> them <b>out</b> from his house into the courtyard. <b>But their</b> houses <b>are permitted</b> both <b>to him and to them,</b> for taking objects out into the courtyard and for bringing them in. <b>If they gave</b> away <b>their rights</b> in the courtyard <b>to him,</b> i.e., if they renounced their rights in his favor, <b>he is permitted</b> to carry from his house into the courtyard, <b>but they are prohibited</b> from doing so. <b>If two</b> residents of the courtyard forgot to establish an <i>eiruv</i>, and the others renounced their rights in the courtyard in their favor, <b>they prohibit one another.</b> In this scenario, the courtyard would belong to both of them, but each individual house remains the domain of its owner. It would therefore be prohibited for each of these residents to carry into the courtyard. <b>For one</b> resident <b>may give away and receive rights</b> in a domain, whereas <b>two</b> residents <b>may</b> only <b>give away rights</b> in a domain, <b>but they may not receive rights</b> in a domain. Since they did not establish an <i>eiruv</i>, it is unreasonable for the other residents of the courtyard to give away their rights in the domain, as the two who are prohibited because they did not participate in the <i>eiruv</i> render it prohibited for each other to carry.", | |
| "The mishna poses a general question: <b>When may one give</b> away <b>rights</b> in a domain? <b>Beit Shammai say: While it is still day,</b> i.e., before the onset of Shabbat; <b>and Beit Hillel say: Even after nightfall,</b> when it is already Shabbat. The mishna cites another dispute: If <b>one gave away his rights</b> in his courtyard to the other residents of the courtyard, renouncing them after having forgotten to establish an <i>eiruv</i> with them the previous day, <b>and</b> then <b>he carried</b> something <b>out</b> from his house into the courtyard – <b>whether unwittingly,</b> forgetting that he had renounced his rights, <b>or intentionally, he</b> renders carrying <b>prohibited</b> for all the residents of the courtyard, for his action cancels his renunciation; this is <b>the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says:</b> If he acted <b>intentionally, he</b> renders carrying <b>prohibited;</b> but if he acted <b>unwittingly, he does not</b> render carrying <b>prohibited.</b>", | |
| "If <b>a homeowner was in partnership with his neighbors, with this</b> one <b>in wine and with that</b> one <b>in wine, they need not establish an <i>eiruv</i>,</b> for due to their authentic partnership they are considered to be one household, and no further partnership is required. If, however, he was in partnership <b>with this</b> one <b>in wine and with that</b> one <b>in oil, they must establish an <i>eiruv</i>.</b> As they are not partners in the same item, they are not all considered one partnership. <b>Rabbi Shimon says:</b> In <b>both this</b> case <b>and that</b> case, i.e., even if he partners with his neighbors in different items, <b>they need not establish an <i>eiruv</i>.</b>", | |
| "With regard to <b>five groups</b> of people <b>who spent Shabbat in one hall [<i>teraklin</i>]</b> that was subdivided by partitions into separate rooms, each of which had a separate entrance to a courtyard that was shared with other houses, <b>Beit Shammai say: An <i>eiruv</i></b> is required <b>for each and every group,</b> i.e., each group must contribute separately to the <i>eiruv</i> of the courtyard, as each is considered a different house. <b>And Beit Hillel say: One <i>eiruv</i></b> suffices <b>for all of them,</b> as the partitions do not render the different sections separate houses. <b>And</b> Beit Hillel <b>concede</b> that <b>when some of them occupy</b> separate <b>rooms or upper stories, they require</b> a separate <b><i>eiruv</i> for each and every group,</b> and the fact that they are in the same building does not render them one unified group.", | |
| "In the case of <b>brothers who were eating at their father’s table and sleeping in their</b> own <b>houses</b> in the same courtyard, a separate contribution to the <b><i>eiruv</i> is required for each and every one</b> of them. <b>Therefore, if one of them forgot and did not</b> contribute to the <b><i>eiruv</i>, he</b> must <b>renounce his rights</b> in the courtyard in order to render carrying in the courtyard permitted to the rest of the courtyard’s residents. <b>When</b> do they state this <i>halakha</i>? They state it <b>when they take their <i>eiruv</i> elsewhere</b> in the courtyard, i.e., to the house of one of the other residents. <b>But if the <i>eiruv</i> was coming to them,</b> i.e., if it was placed in their father’s house, <b>or if there are no</b> other <b>residents with</b> the brothers and their father <b>in the courtyard, they are not required to establish an <i>eiruv</i>,</b> as they are considered like a single individual living in a courtyard.", | |
| "If <b>five courtyards open into one another and</b> also <b>open into an alleyway,</b> the following distinctions apply: If the residents of the courtyard <b>established an <i>eiruv</i> in the courtyards and did not merge the</b> courtyards that open into the <b>alleyway, they are permitted</b> to carry <b>in the courtyards and they are prohibited</b> to carry <b>in the alleyway.</b> The <i>eiruv</i> they established cannot also serve as a merging of the courtyards that open into the alleyway. <b>And if they merged</b> the courtyards of <b>the alleyway, they are permitted</b> to carry both <b>here,</b> in the alleyway, and <b>there,</b> in the courtyards. If <b>they established an <i>eiruv</i> in the courtyards</b> and also <b>merged</b> the courtyards of <b>the alleyway, and one of the residents of the courtyard forgot and did not</b> contribute to the <b><i>eiruv</i></b> in his courtyard, but did participate in the merging of the courtyards in the alleyway, <b>they are permitted</b> both <b>here and there,</b> as the merging of courtyards in the alleyway serves as an effective <i>eiruv</i> for the courtyards as well. However, if one <b>of the residents of the alleyway</b> forgot <b>and did not</b> participate in the <b>merging</b> of courtyards that open into the alleyway, <b>they are permitted</b> to carry <b>in the courtyards and prohibited</b> from carrying <b>in the alleyway, as</b> the principle is: <b>An alleyway is to</b> its <b>courtyards as a courtyard is to</b> its <b>houses.</b>", | |
| "With regard to <b>two courtyards, one</b> of which was <b>within the other,</b> and the outer one opened into the public domain, the following distinctions apply: If <b>the inner</b> courtyard <b>established an <i>eiruv</i></b> for itself <b>and the outer</b> one <b>did not establish an <i>eiruv</i>,</b> carrying in <b>the inner one is permitted and</b> carrying in <b>the outer one is prohibited.</b> If <b>the outer</b> courtyard established an <i>eiruv</i> <b>and the inner</b> one did <b>not,</b> carrying in <b>both</b> is <b>prohibited,</b> as the residents of the inner courtyard pass through the outer one, and are considered to a certain extent as residents of the courtyard who did not participate in the <i>eiruv</i>. If <b>this</b> courtyard <b>established an <i>eiruv</i> for itself, and that</b> courtyard also <b>established an <i>eiruv</i> for itself,</b> but they did not establish a joint <i>eiruv</i> with one another, <b>this one is permitted by itself, and that one is permitted by itself,</b> but they may not carry from one to the other. <b>Rabbi Akiva prohibits</b> carrying in <b>the outer one</b> even in such a case, <b>as the</b> right of <b>entry</b> to the outer courtyard enjoyed by the residents of the inner courtyard <b>renders it prohibited. And the Rabbis</b> disagree and <b>say:</b> The right of <b>entry</b> enjoyed by the residents of the inner courtyard <b>does not render it prohibited.</b> Since the residents of the inner courtyard do not use the outer one other than to pass through it, and they are permitted to carry in their own courtyard, they do not render it prohibited to carry in the outer courtyard.", | |
| "If <b>one</b> resident <b>of the outer</b> courtyard <b>forgot and did not</b> contribute to the <b><i>eiruv</i>,</b> carrying in <b>the inner</b> courtyard <b>is permitted and</b> in <b>the outer one is prohibited.</b> If one resident <b>of the inner</b> courtyard <b>forgot and did not</b> contribute to the <b><i>eiruv</i>, they are both prohibited,</b> as the right of way enjoyed by the members of the inner courtyard through the outer courtyard renders the outer one prohibited as well. If the residents of both courtyards <b>put their <i>eiruv</i> in one place, and one</b> person, <b>whether</b> he was <b>from the inner</b> courtyard <b>or from the outer one, forgot and did not</b> contribute to the <b><i>eiruv</i>, they are both prohibited</b> for carrying within them, as the two courtyards are treated as one. <b>And if</b> the courtyards belonged <b>to individuals,</b> i.e., if only one person lived in each courtyard, <b>they are not required to establish an <i>eiruv</i>,</b> as this requirement applies only to a courtyard occupied by multiple residents." | |
| ], | |
| [ | |
| "If there is <b>a window</b> in a wall that separates <b>between two courtyards,</b> and the window measures <b>four by four</b> handbreadths and is <b>within ten</b> handbreadths of the ground, the inhabitants of the courtyards <b>establish two <i>eiruvin</i>,</b> one for each courtyard. <b>And if they desire, they</b> may <b>establish one <i>eiruv</i>,</b> thereby merging the two courtyards, as they may be considered as one due to the window. However, if the window measures <b>less than four by four</b> handbreadths, or if it is <b>above ten</b> handbreadths from the ground, it is no longer considered a valid opening, and the two courtyards cannot be considered a single courtyard. Therefore, the residents <b>establish two <i>eiruvin</i>, but they</b> may <b>not establish one <i>eiruv</i>.</b>", | |
| "If <b>a wall between two courtyards is ten</b> handbreadths <b>high and four</b> handbreadths <b>wide,</b> the residents of the courtyard <b>establish two <i>eiruvin</i>,</b> a separate one for each courtyard, <b>but they</b> may <b>not establish one <i>eiruv</i>.</b> <b>If there was produce on top</b> of the wall, <b>these</b> residents of one courtyard <b>may ascend from this side and eat</b> from it, <b>and those</b> residents of the other courtyard <b>may ascend from that side and eat</b> from it, <b>provided that they do not lower</b> the produce <b>down</b> from on top of the wall to one of the courtyards. <b>If the wall was breached,</b> the following distinction applies: If the breach was <b>up to ten cubits</b> wide, <b>they establish two <i>eiruvin</i>, and if they desire, they</b> may <b>establish one <i>eiruv</i>, as it is similar to an entrance,</b> like any opening less than ten cubits wide. If the breach was <b>more than this, they establish one <i>eiruv</i>, and they</b> may <b>not establish two,</b> as a breach of this size nullifies the partition and joins the two courtyards into a single domain.", | |
| "With regard to <b>a ditch between</b> two <b>courtyards</b> that is <b>ten</b> handbreadths <b>deep and four</b> handbreadths <b>wide,</b> it is considered a full-fledged partition, and the residents of the courtyard <b>establish two <i>eiruvin</i>,</b> one for each courtyard, <b>but they</b> may <b>not establish one <i>eiruv</i>. Even</b> if the ditch is <b>filled</b> with <b>straw or hay,</b> it is not regarded as sealed and is therefore not nullified. However, if the ditch is <b>filled with dirt or pebbles,</b> the residents <b>establish one <i>eiruv</i>, but they</b> may <b>not establish two <i>eiruvin</i>,</b> as the ditch is nullified and considered nonexistent.", | |
| "If <b>one placed a board four handbreadths wide across</b> the ditch so that he could cross it, <b>and similarly,</b> if <b>two balconies [<i>gezuztraot</i>]</b> in two different courtyards are <b>opposite one another,</b> and one placed a board four handbreadths wide between them, the residents of the courtyards or balconies <b>establish two <i>eiruvin</i>, and if they desire, they</b> may <b>establish one,</b> as the board serves as an opening and a passageway between them. If the width of the plank is <b>less than</b> four handbreadths, the residents <b>establish two <i>eiruvin</i>, but they</b> may <b>not establish one <i>eiruv</i>.</b>", | |
| "With regard to <b>a haystack that is</b> positioned <b>between two courtyards</b> and is <b>ten handbreadths high,</b> it has the status of a partition, <b>and</b> therefore the residents of the courtyards may <b>establish two <i>eiruvin</i>, and they</b> may <b>not establish one <i>eiruv</i>. These,</b> the inhabitants of one courtyard, may <b>feed</b> their animals <b>from here,</b> from one side of the haystack, <b>and those,</b> the inhabitants of the other courtyard, may <b>feed</b> their animals <b>from there,</b> from the other side of the haystack. There is no concern that the haystack might become too small to serve as a partition. If the height of <b>the hay was reduced</b> to less <b>than ten handbreadths</b> across its entire length, its legal status is no longer that of a partition. Consequently, the residents of both courtyards <b>establish one <i>eiruv</i>, and they do not establish two <i>eiruvin</i>.</b>", | |
| "<b>How does one merge</b> the courtyards that open <b>into the alleyway,</b> if a person wishes to act on behalf of all the residents of the alleyway? <b>He places a barrel</b> filled with his own food <b>and says: This is for all the residents of the alleyway.</b> For this gift to be acquired by the others, someone must accept it on their behalf, <b>and</b> the <i>tanna</i> therefore teaches that <b>he</b> may <b>confer possession to them</b> even <b>by means of his adult son or daughter, and</b> likewise <b>by means of his Hebrew slave or maidservant,</b> whom he does not own, <b>and by means of his wife.</b> These people may acquire the <i>eiruv</i> on behalf of all the residents of the alleyway. <b>However, he</b> may <b>not confer possession by means of his minor son or daughter, nor by means of his Canaanite slave or maidservant, because</b> they cannot effect acquisition, as ownership of objects that come into <b>their possession is as</b> if those objects came into <b>his possession.</b> Consequently, the master or father cannot confer possession to the slave or minor respectively on behalf of others as their acquisition is ineffective and the object remains in his own possession.", | |
| "<b>If the food</b> in the barrel for the merging of the alleyway <b>diminished</b> and was less than the requisite measure, <b>one</b> may <b>add</b> a little of his own <b>and confer possession</b> to the others, <b>and he need not inform</b> them of his addition. However, if new residents <b>were added to</b> the residents of the alleyway, <b>he may add</b> food on behalf of those residents <b>and confer possession</b> to them, <b>and he must inform</b> the new residents of their inclusion in the merging of alleyways.", | |
| "<b>What is the measure</b> of food required for a merging of the alleyways? <b>When</b> the residents of the alley <b>are numerous, food for two meals</b> is sufficient <b>for all of them; when they are few,</b> less than a certain number, <b>a dried fig-bulk for each and every one of them</b> is enough.", | |
| "<b>Rabbi Yosei said: In what</b> case <b>is this statement said?</b> It is said <b>with regard to the beginning of an <i>eiruv</i>,</b> when it is initially established. <b>However, with regard to the remnants of an <i>eiruv</i>,</b> e.g., if the <i>eiruv</i> decreased in size on Shabbat, it remains valid if even <b>any amount</b> remains. <b>And</b> in general <b>they said</b> that it is necessary <b>to join the courtyards,</b> even though a merging of the alleyways was already in place, <b>only so that</b> the halakhic category of <i>eiruv</i> <b>will not be forgotten by the children,</b> i.e., so that the next generation should be aware that an <i>eiruv</i> can be established for a courtyard, for otherwise they would be entirely unaware of this halakhic category.", | |
| "<b>One</b> may <b>join</b> courtyards <b>and merge</b> alleyways <b>with all</b> types of food, <b>except for water and salt,</b> as they are not considered foods. This is <b>the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Yehoshua says</b> that a different limitation applies: A whole <b>loaf</b> may be used for <b>an <i>eiruv</i>.</b> With regard to <b>a baked</b> product even the size <b>of a <i>se’a</i>, if it</b> consists of <b>pieces, one</b> may <b>not join</b> courtyards <b>with it.</b> However, with regard to <b>a loaf,</b> even one the size of <b>an <i>issar</i>, if it is whole, one</b> may <b>join</b> courtyards <b>with it.</b>", | |
| "<b>A person</b> may <b>give a <i>ma’a</i></b> coin <b>to a grocer or a baker,</b> if they live in the same alleyway or courtyard, <b>so that</b> the grocer or baker <b>will confer upon him possession</b> of wine or bread <b>for</b> a merging of the alleyway or <b>an <i>eiruv</i>,</b> if other residents come to them to purchase these products for that purpose. This is <b>the statement of Rabbi Eliezer.</b> <b>And the Rabbis say: His money did not confer possession on him,</b> as the transfer of money alone is not a valid mode of acquisition and cannot confer possession. One must perform a valid mode of acquisition, e.g., pulling an article into one’s possession, to transfer ownership. <b>And</b> the Rabbis <b>concede with regard to all</b> other <b>people,</b> apart from grocers and bakers, <b>that</b> if one gave them money for the food of an <i>eiruv</i>, <b>his money confers possession upon him, as one</b> may <b>establish an <i>eiruv</i> for a person only with his knowledge</b> and at his bidding. With regard to a grocer or baker, the person giving the money does not intend to appoint the grocer or the baker as his agent and the money itself does not effect an acquisition, and consequently, he did not accomplish anything. With regard to anyone else, however, there is no doubt that he must have intended to appoint him his agent, and his act is effective. <b>Rabbi Yehuda said: In what case is this statement said?</b> It is said <b>with regard to a joining of</b> Shabbat <b>boundaries, but with regard to a joining of courtyards, one</b> may <b>establish an <i>eiruv</i></b> for a person either <b>with his knowledge or without his knowledge.</b> The reason is <b>because one may act for a person’s benefit in his absence, but one may not act to a person’s disadvantage in his absence.</b> As a participant in a joining of courtyards benefits from his inclusion in the <i>eiruv</i>, his consent is not required. However, with regard to a joining of Shabbat boundaries, although it enables one to go farther in one direction, he loses the option of traveling in the opposite direction. When an action is to a person’s disadvantage, or if it entails both benefits and disadvantages, one may act on that person’s behalf only if he has been explicitly appointed his agent." | |
| ], | |
| [ | |
| "<b>How does one participate in</b> the joining of Shabbat <b>boundaries?</b> One who wishes to establish a joining of Shabbat boundaries for himself and others <b>places a barrel</b> of food in the location he designates as their place of residence, <b>and says: This is for all the residents of my town, for anyone who</b> wishes to <b>go</b> on Shabbat <b>to a house of mourning or to a house of</b> a wedding <b>feast</b> situated beyond the Shabbat limit.<b>Anyone who accepted upon himself while it was still day,</b> i.e., before the onset of Shabbat, that he will rely on the <i>eiruv</i>, <b>is permitted</b> to rely upon it; but if one did so only <b>after nightfall,</b> he is <b>prohibited</b> to rely upon it, as the principle is that <b>one may not establish an <i>eiruv</i> after nightfall.</b>", | |
| "<b>What is the measure</b> for an joining of Shabbat boundaries? It consists of a quantity of <b>food</b> sufficient for <b>two meals for each and every one</b> of those included in the <i>eiruv</i>. The <i>tanna’im</i> disagree with regard to the size of these two meals. It is referring to <b>one’s food</b> that he eats <b>on a weekday and not on Shabbat;</b> this is <b>the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says:</b> It is referring to the amount he eats <b>on Shabbat and not on a weekday. And</b> both <b>this</b> Sage, Rabbi Meir, <b>and that</b> Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, <b>intended to be lenient,</b> as Rabbi Meir maintains that people eat more food on Shabbat, whereas Rabbi Yehuda believes that they consume more on a weekday. <b>Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka says:</b> Food for two meals is the size <b>of a loaf</b> bought <b>with a <i>pundeyon</i>,</b> which is one-forty-eighth of a <i>sela</i>, <b>when four <i>se’a</i></b> of wheat are sold <b>for a <i>sela</i>. Rabbi Shimon says:</b> Food for two meals is <b>two</b> of three <b>parts of a loaf, when three</b> loaves are prepared <b>from a <i>kav</i></b> of wheat. In other words, the measure is two-thirds of a loaf the size of one-third of a <i>kav</i>. Having discussed measures with regard to a loaf of bread, the mishna states that <b>half</b> of this loaf is the amount called a half [<i>peras</i>], a measure relevant <b>for</b> the <i>halakhot</i> of <b>a leprous house.</b> If one enters a house afflicted with leprosy and remains there long enough to eat this amount of food, the clothes he is wearing become ritually impure. <b>And half of its half,</b> a quarter of this loaf, is the amount of ritually impure food that <b>disqualifies the body.</b> In other words, impure food of this amount imparts ritual impurity to the body of the eater, and disqualifies him by rabbinic law from eating <i>teruma</i>.", | |
| "If both <b>the residents of</b> houses that open directly into <b>a courtyard and the residents of</b> apartments that open onto <b>a balcony</b> from which stairs lead down to that courtyard <b>forgot and did not establish an <i>eiruv</i></b> between them, <b>anything</b> in the courtyard <b>that is ten handbreadths high,</b>e.g., a mound or a post, is part <b>of the balcony.</b> The residents of the apartments open to the balcony may transfer objects to and from their apartments onto the mound or post. Any post or mound that is <b>lower than this</b> height is part <b>of the courtyard.</b> A similar <i>halakha</i> applies to <b>an embankment</b> that surrounds <b>a cistern or a rock:</b> If the embankments that surround a cistern or rock are <b>ten handbreadths high,</b> they belong <b>to the balcony;</b> if they are <b>lower than this,</b> they may be used only <b>by</b> the inhabitants of <b>the courtyard.</b> <b>In what</b> case <b>are these matters,</b> the <i>halakha</i> that anything higher than ten handbreadths belongs to the balcony, <b>stated?</b> When the mound or embankment is <b>near</b> the balcony. <b>But in</b> a case where the embankment or mound is <b>distant</b> from it, <b>even</b> if it is <b>ten handbreadths high,</b> the right to use the embankment or mound goes <b>to</b> the members of <b>the courtyard. And what is</b> considered <b>near? Anything that is not four handbreadths removed</b> from the balcony.", | |
| "With regard to <b>one who placed his <i>eiruv</i></b> of courtyards <b>in a gatehouse</b> or in <b>a portico,</b> a roofed structure without walls or with incomplete walls, <b>or</b> one who deposited it in <b>a balcony,</b> this <b>is not a</b> valid <b><i>eiruv</i>. And one who resides there,</b> in any of these structures, <b>does not render it prohibited</b> for the homeowner and the other residents of the courtyard to carry, even if he did not contribute to the <i>eiruv</i>. If, however, one deposited his <i>eiruv</i> in <b>a hay shed or</b> in <b>a cowshed or</b> in <b>a woodshed or</b> in <b>a storehouse, this is</b> a valid <b><i>eiruv</i>,</b> as it is located in a properly guarded place. <b>And one who resides there</b> with permission, if he neglected to contribute to the <i>eiruv</i>, he <b>renders it prohibited</b> for the homeowner and the other residents of the courtyard to carry. <b>Rabbi Yehuda says: If the homeowner has there,</b> in the hay shed or the other places listed above, <b>a right of usage,</b> i.e., if he is entitled to use all or part of the area for his own purposes, then the one who lives there <b>does not render it prohibited</b> for the homeowner, as the area is considered the homeowner’s quarters, and the person living there is classified as a member of his household.", | |
| "<b>One who leaves his house,</b> which is located in a shared courtyard, <b>and goes to spend Shabbat in a different town, whether</b> he is <b>a gentile or a Jew, he renders it prohibited</b> for the other residents to use the courtyard as though he were still at home; this is <b>the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: He does not render it prohibited for</b> them, as he left behind him an empty residence. <b>Rabbi Yosei says: A gentile renders it prohibited</b> but <b>a Jew does not render it prohibited,</b> as <b>it is not the manner of a Jew to come</b> home <b>on Shabbat.</b> A Jew will not return home, therefore his empty residence does not render it prohibited. By contrast, a gentile might return over the course of Shabbat. Therefore, he is not considered to have fully uprooted himself from his house, and he renders it prohibited. <b>Rabbi Shimon says: Even</b> if the Jew <b>left his house and went to spend Shabbat with his daughter</b> who lived <b>in the same town, he does not render it prohibited.</b> Although he can return home at any time, it is assumed <b>that he has already removed from his mind</b> any thought of going back there and has established his Shabbat residence away from his home.", | |
| "In the case of <b>a cistern that is</b> located <b>between two courtyards,</b> situated partly in each courtyard, <b>one may not draw</b> water <b>from it on Shabbat,</b> lest the residents of one courtyard draw water from the domain of the other courtyard, <b>unless a partition ten handbreadths high was erected for it</b> as a separation between the domains. This partition is effective <b>whether</b> it is <b>below,</b> in the water, <b>or whether it is within the</b> airspace of the cistern below the <b>rim,</b> above the surface of the water. <b>Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said:</b> This is the subject of an early dispute of <i>tanna’im</i>, as <b>Beit Shammai said</b> that the partition, which permits drawing water, must be placed <b>below; and Beit Hillel said</b> it should be positioned <b>above. Rabbi Yehuda said: A partition is no better than the wall between them.</b> A wall dividing the two courtyards passes over the cistern, therefore it is not necessary to erect an additional partition in the cistern’s airspace.", | |
| "With regard to <b>a water channel that passes through a courtyard,</b> the residents <b>may not draw</b> water <b>from it on Shabbat, unless they erected for it a partition ten handbreadths high at the entrance and at the exit</b> of the courtyard. <b>Rabbi Yehuda says:</b> There is no need for a special partition, as the <b>wall that</b> runs <b>on top of it,</b> i.e., the courtyard wall, <b>is considered as a partition.</b> <b>Rabbi Yehuda said:</b> There was <b>an incident involving a</b> water <b>channel</b> that passed through the courtyards <b>of</b> the town of <b>Avel,</b> from <b>which</b> the residents <b>would draw</b> water <b>from it on Shabbat by the authority of the Elders,</b> relying on the courtyard wall suspended above it. <b>They said to him:</b> It is <b>due to</b> the fact that channel <b>was not of the size</b> that requires a partition, i.e., it was less than ten handbreadths deep or less than ten handbreadths wide, it was permitted to draw water from it even without a partition.", | |
| "With regard to <b>a balcony that</b> extends <b>over</b> a body of <b>water,</b> if a hole was opened in the floor, its residents <b>may not draw</b> water <b>from it</b> through the hole <b>on Shabbat, unless they erected for it a partition ten handbreadths high</b> around the hole. It is permitted to draw water by means of that partition, <b>whether</b> it is positioned <b>above</b> the balcony, in which case the partition is seen as descending downward, <b>or</b> whether it is placed <b>below</b> the balcony. <b>And likewise,</b> with regard to <b>two</b> such <b>balconies, one above the other,</b> if <b>they erected</b> a partition <b>for the upper balcony but they did not erect</b> one <b>for the lower one,</b> the residents <b>are both prohibited</b> from drawing water through the upper one, <b>unless they establish an <i>eiruv</i></b> between them.", | |
| "With regard to <b>a courtyard that is less than four cubits</b> by four cubits in area, <b>one may not pour</b> waste <b>water into it on Shabbat, unless a pit was fashioned</b> to receive the water, and the pit <b>holds two <i>se’a</i></b> in volume <b>from its edge below.</b> This <i>halakha</i> applies <b>whether</b> the pit was fashioned <b>outside</b> the courtyard <b>or</b> whether it was dug <b>inside</b> the courtyard itself. The <b>only</b> difference is as follows: <b>If</b> the pit was dug <b>outside</b> in the adjoining public domain, <b>it is necessary to arch over</b> it, so that the water will not flow into the public domain. If it was dug <b>inside</b> the courtyard, <b>it is not necessary to arch over</b> it.", | |
| "<b>Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says:</b> In the case of a drainage <b>ditch whose</b> first <b>four cubits are arched over in the public domain, one may pour</b> waste <b>water into it on Shabbat. And the Rabbis say: Even</b> if <b>a roof or a courtyard</b> is <b>a hundred cubits</b> in area, <b>one may not pour</b> water directly <b>onto the mouth of the</b> drainage <b>ditch. However, he may pour</b> it <b>upon the roof,</b> from which <b>the water spills into the drain</b> of its own accord. <b>A courtyard and a portico,</b> a roofed but unwalled structure in front of a house, <b>combine for the four cubits</b> by virtue of which it is permitted to pour water even into a courtyard that lacks a pit.", | |
| "<b>And likewise,</b> with regard to <b>two upper stories [<i>deyotaot</i>], one opposite the other</b> in the same small courtyard, if the residents of <b>one</b> of them <b>fashioned a pit</b> in the courtyard, <b>and</b> the residents of <b>the other did not fashion a pit, those who fashioned a pit are permitted</b> to pour their waste water into the courtyard, whereas <b>those who did not fashion a pit are prohibited</b> to do so." | |
| ], | |
| [ | |
| "<b>All the roofs of the city</b> are considered <b>one domain.</b> It is permitted to carry from one roof to another, even if the residents of the houses did not establish an <i>eiruv</i> between them. The Sages did not prohibit carrying between roofs, as it is rare to transfer an item from one roof to another. However, it is only permitted to transfer objects between roofs <b>provided that</b> one <b>roof is neither ten</b> handbreadths <b>higher nor ten</b> handbreadths <b>lower</b> than the adjacent roof. This is <b>the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: Each and every one</b> of the roofs is <b>a domain in and of itself.</b> It is permitted to carry from one to the other only if the residents of both houses established an <i>eiruv</i>. <b>Rabbi Shimon says: Roofs, courtyards, and enclosures are all one domain with regard to vessels that were inside them</b> when <b>Shabbat</b> began, and one may therefore carry from one of these areas to another. However, they are <b>not</b> one domain <b>with regard to vessels that were inside the house</b> when <b>Shabbat</b> began and were later taken into one of the above domains. A vessel that was inside the house when Shabbat began and subsequently carried to one of these areas may be carried from one roof, courtyard, or enclosure to another only if an <i>eiruv</i> had been established between the domains.", | |
| "If <b>a large roof</b> was <b>adjacent to a small roof,</b> and the boundary between them was no wider than ten cubits, use of <b>the large one is permitted,</b> i.e., one may bring objects up to the roof from the house below and carry them on the roof, <b>and</b> use of <b>the small one is prohibited.</b> A similar <i>halakha</i> applies to <b>a large courtyard that was breached into a small</b> one, in a manner that one entire side of the small courtyard was breached, but the breach was less than ten cubits; it is <b>permitted</b> for the residents of <b>the large</b> courtyard to carry, <b>but</b> it is <b>prohibited</b> for the residents of <b>the small one</b> to do so. The rationale for this difference is <b>because</b> in that case, the legal status of the breach <b>is like</b> that of <b>the entrance of the large</b> courtyard. As the breach in the wall of the larger courtyard is surrounded on both sides by the remaining portions of that wall, and the breach is no greater than ten cubits wide, its legal status is like that of an entrance in the wall of the courtyard, and therefore it is permitted to carry in the large courtyard. With regard to the small courtyard, however, since one entire side of the small courtyard was breached, there remains no partition whatsoever on that side and carrying in that courtyard is therefore prohibited. With regard to <b>a courtyard that was breached into the public domain,</b> and the breach was more than ten cubits wide, so that it cannot be considered an entrance, <b>one who carries</b> an object <b>from inside</b> the courtyard <b>into the private domain, or from the private domain into it, is liable,</b> as it ceases to be a private domain and is subsumed into the public domain. This is <b>the statement of Rabbi Eliezer.</b> <b>And the Rabbis</b> disagree and <b>say:</b> One who carries <b>from inside</b> the courtyard <b>into the public domain, or from the public domain into it, is exempt, because its</b> legal status <b>is like</b> that of <b>a <i>karmelit</i>.</b> Although it ceases to be a private domain, it does not become a full-fledged public domain.", | |
| "With regard to <b>a courtyard that was breached</b> on Shabbat <b>into a public domain from two</b> of <b>its sides, and likewise</b> with regard to <b>a house that was breached from two</b> of <b>its sides, and likewise</b> with regard to <b>an alleyway whose</b> cross <b>beams or side posts were removed</b> on Shabbat, the residents of that domain <b>are permitted</b> to carry there <b>on that Shabbat, but are prohibited</b> from doing so <b>in the future.</b> This is <b>the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.</b> <b>Rabbi Yosei says:</b> This cannot be the <i>halakha</i>, as <b>if they are permitted</b> to carry there <b>on that Shabbat, they are</b> likewise <b>permitted</b> to do so <b>in the future, and if they are prohibited</b> from carrying there <b>in the future, they are</b> also <b>prohibited</b> from carrying there <b>on that Shabbat.</b>", | |
| "With regard to <b>one who builds an upper story atop two houses</b> on opposite sides of a public domain that passes beneath it, <b>and likewise bridges with a thoroughfare</b> beneath them that rest on walls on opposite sides of a public domain, <b>one</b> may <b>carry beneath</b> the upper story and beneath the bridge <b>on Shabbat.</b> This is <b>the statement of Rabbi Yehuda,</b> who maintains that these areas are considered private domains. <b>And the Rabbis prohibit</b> carrying in these areas. <b>And furthermore, Rabbi Yehuda said: One</b> may <b>establish an <i>eiruv</i></b> even <b>for an alleyway that is open</b> at both ends, with no need for any additional measures, <b>and the Rabbis prohibit</b> doing so." | |
| ], | |
| [ | |
| "<b>One who finds phylacteries</b> outside the city on Shabbat, where they are in danger of becoming lost or damaged, <b>brings them in</b> to his house <b>pair</b> by <b>pair</b> by donning them in the manner in which they are typically donned for the mitzva. <b>Rabban Gamliel says:</b> He brings them in <b>two</b> pairs by <b>two</b> pairs. <b>In what</b> case <b>is this statement</b> that one is permitted to carry phylacteries inside <b>said?</b> It is <b>with regard to old</b> phylacteries, which have already been used and are designated for the mitzva. <b>However, with regard to new</b> ones, as it is unclear whether they are phylacteries or merely amulets in the form of phylacteries, he is <b>exempt</b> from performing the task. If <b>one finds</b> phylacteries <b>tied in bundles or in wrapped piles,</b> in which case he is unable to carry them in pairs, <b>he</b> sits there and <b>waits with them until dark,</b> guarding them until the conclusion of Shabbat, <b>and</b> then <b>brings them in</b> to his house. <b>And in</b> a time of <b>danger,</b> when it is dangerous to tarry outside town, <b>he covers</b> the phylacteries <b>and proceeds on his</b> way.", | |
| "<b>Rabbi Shimon says</b> that there is an alternative method of transferring the phylacteries: <b>One gives them to another</b> who is less than four cubits from him, <b>and the other</b> passes them <b>to another, until</b> the phylacteries <b>reach the outermost courtyard</b> of the city. Since carrying less than four cubits in a public domain is not prohibited by Torah law, in this case, the Sages permitted carrying in that manner due to the sanctity of the phylacteries. <b>And similarly,</b> with regard to <b>one’s son</b> who was born in a field and may not be carried on Shabbat, since that is akin to carrying a burden in the public domain: <b>One gives him to another, and the other</b> passes him <b>to another, even</b> if it requires <b>a hundred</b> people. <b>Rabbi Yehuda says: A person</b> may even <b>give a barrel to another, and the other</b> may pass it <b>to another,</b> and in that way <b>even</b> take it <b>beyond the</b> Shabbat <b>limit,</b> provided that no one person carries it more than four cubits. <b>They said to him: This</b> barrel may <b>not go a greater</b> distance <b>than the feet of its owner,</b> i.e., it may not be carried any farther than its owner may walk.", | |
| "One who <b>was reading</b> a sacred <b>book</b> in scroll form on Shabbat <b>on</b> an elevated, wide <b>threshold, and the book rolled from his hand</b> into the public domain, <b>he</b> may <b>roll it</b> back <b>to himself,</b> since one of its ends remains in his hand. If <b>he was reading on top the roof,</b> which is a full-fledged private domain, <b>and the book rolled from his hand, as long as</b> the edge of the book <b>did not reach</b> within <b>ten handbreadths</b> above the public domain, the book is still in its own domain, and he may <b>roll it</b> back <b>to himself.</b> However, <b>once the book has reached</b> within <b>ten handbreadths</b> above the public domain, it is prohibited to roll the book back to oneself. In that case, <b>he</b> may only <b>turn it</b> over <b>onto the</b> side with <b>writing,</b> so that the writing of the book will be facedown and not exposed and degraded. <b>Rabbi Yehuda says: Even</b> if the scroll <b>is removed only a needle breadth from the ground, he rolls it</b> back <b>to himself. Rabbi Shimon says: Even if</b> the scroll is <b>on the ground itself, he rolls it</b> back <b>to himself, as you have nothing</b> that was instituted <b>as a rabbinic decree</b> to enhance the character of Shabbat as a day of <b>rest</b> that <b>stands</b> as an impediment <b>before</b> the rescue of <b>sacred writings.</b>", | |
| "With regard to <b>a ledge in front of a window,</b> that is ten handbreadths high and four handbreadths wide, <b>one</b> may <b>place</b> objects <b>upon it or remove</b> them <b>from it on Shabbat</b> via the window. <b>A person</b> may <b>stand in a private domain and move</b> objects that are <b>in a public domain,</b> as there is no concern that he might mistakenly bring them into the private domain. Similarly, one may stand <b>in a public domain and move</b> objects <b>in a private domain, provided that he does not carry</b> them <b>beyond four cubits</b> in the public domain, which is prohibited on Shabbat.", | |
| "However, <b>a person</b> may <b>not stand in a private domain and urinate into a public domain,</b> nor may one stand <b>in a public domain and urinate into a private domain. And likewise, one</b> may <b>not spit</b> in such a manner that the spittle passes from a private domain to a public domain or vice versa. <b>Rabbi Yehuda says: Even once</b> a person’s <b>spittle is gathered in his mouth, he</b> may <b>not walk four cubits</b> in the public domain <b>until he spits</b> it out, for he would be carrying the accumulated spittle in his mouth, which is akin to carrying any other object.", | |
| "<b>A person</b> may <b>stand in a private domain</b> and extend his head <b>and drink in a public domain,</b> and he may stand <b>in a public domain and drink in a private domain, only if he brings his head and most of his</b> body <b>into the domain</b> in <b>which he drinks. And the same</b> applies <b>in a winepress,</b> as will be explained in the Gemara. <b>A person</b> standing in a public domain on Shabbat may <b>catch</b> water in a vessel <b>from a gutter</b> running along the side of a roof, if it is <b>less than ten handbreadths</b> off the ground, which is part of the public domain. <b>And from a pipe</b> that protrudes from the roof, <b>one</b> may <b>drink in any manner,</b> i.e., not only by catching the water in a vessel, but even by pressing his mouth directly against the spout.", | |
| "With regard to <b>a cistern in a public domain, with an embankment ten handbreadths high,</b> i.e., the embankment constitutes a private domain by itself, if there is <b>a window above</b> the cistern, i.e., the window of an adjacent house is situated above the cistern, <b>one</b> may <b>draw</b> water <b>from</b> the cistern <b>on Shabbat</b> through the window, as it is permitted to carry from one private domain to another. Similarly, with regard to <b>a garbage dump in a public domain</b> that is <b>ten handbreadths high,</b> which means it has the status of a private domain, if there is <b>a window above</b> the pile of refuse that abuts the garbage dump, <b>one</b> may <b>throw water</b> from the window <b>onto</b> the dump <b>on Shabbat,</b> as it is permitted to carry from one private domain to another.", | |
| "With regard to <b>a tree that was hanging over the ground,</b> i.e., its branches hung down on all sides like a tent so that it threw a shadow on the ground, <b>if</b> the tips of <b>its branches are no higher than three handbreadths from the ground, one</b> may <b>carry under it.</b> This applies even if the tree is planted in a public domain, as the branches form partitions which turn the enclosed area into a private domain. If <b>its roots</b> were <b>three handbreadths higher than the ground, one</b> may <b>not sit on them,</b> as it is prohibited to use a tree on Shabbat. Any part of a tree that is three handbreadths above the ground has the status of a tree with regard to this prohibition. With regard to <b>the door to a rear court,</b> i.e., a door that opens from a house to the courtyard situated behind it, which is typically not a proper door but merely a wooden board without hinges that closes off the doorway; <b>and</b> likewise <b>bundles of thorns</b> that seal <b>a breach; and</b> reed <b>mats, one</b> may <b>not close</b> an opening <b>with them</b> on Shabbat. This would be considered building or completing a building, <b>unless they</b> remain <b>above the ground</b> even when they are open.", | |
| "<b>A person</b> may <b>not stand in the private domain and open</b> a door located <b>in the public domain</b> with a key, lest he inadvertently transfer the key from one domain to the other. Likewise, one may not stand <b>in the public domain and open</b> a door <b>in the private domain</b> with a key, <b>unless</b> in the latter case <b>he erected a partition ten handbreadths high</b> around the door and stands inside it. This is <b>the statement of Rabbi Meir.</b> The Rabbis <b>said to him:</b> There was <b>an incident at the poultry dealers’ market in Jerusalem,</b> where they would fatten fowl for slaughter (Rabbeinu Ḥananel), <b>and they would lock</b> the doors to their shops <b>and place the key in the window that was over the door,</b> which was more than ten handbreadths off the ground, and nobody was concerned about the possible violation of any prohibition. <b>Rabbi Yosei says:</b> That place <b>was a market of wool dealers.</b>", | |
| "With regard to <b>a bolt</b> that secures a door in place and <b>that has</b> a thick <b>knob [<i>gelustera</i>] at its end,</b> a useful implement for a variety of purposes, the <i>tanna’im</i> disagree whether the bolt has the status of a vessel, and one may therefore close the door with it, or whether it is considered a cross beam, which would mean that doing so is classified as building. <b>Rabbi Eliezer prohibits</b> its use, <b>and Rabbi Yosei permits</b> it. <b>Rabbi Eliezer said: An incident</b> occurred <b>in a synagogue in Tiberias, where they were accustomed</b> to treat use of this bolt as <b>permitted, until Rabban Gamliel and the Elders came and prohibited</b> it to <b>them. Rabbi Yosei says</b> that the opposite was the case: At first <b>they were accustomed</b> to treat use of this bolt as <b>prohibited, and Rabban Gamliel and the Elders came and permitted</b> it to <b>them.</b>", | |
| "With regard to <b>a bolt that</b> is attached to the door, but owing to the length of the rope, it does not hang from the door but <b>drags</b> along the ground, <b>one</b> may <b>lock</b> a door <b>with it in the Temple</b> on Shabbat, as this is prohibited only by rabbinic decree, issued to enhance the character of Shabbat as a day of rest, and rabbinic decrees are not in effect in the Temple. <b>However,</b> one may <b>not</b> lock a door with this bolt <b>in the country</b> outside the Temple. <b>And</b> with regard to <b>one that</b> is not tied at all but <b>rests</b> entirely on the ground, it <b>is prohibited in both</b> places, in and outside the Temple, as the use of this bolt is considered building. <b>Rabbi Yehuda says: One that rests</b> entirely on the ground <b>is permitted in the Temple, and one that drags</b> along the ground is permitted even <b>in</b> the rest of <b>the country.</b>", | |
| "<b>One</b> may <b>restore</b> the <b>lower hinge pin</b> of the door of a carriage, box, or cupboard that becomes dislocated to its place on Shabbat <b>in the Temple,</b> as this action is prohibited by rabbinic decree, which is not in effect in the Temple; <b>but</b> it may <b>not</b> be restored to its place <b>in</b> the rest of <b>the country. And</b> restoring <b>the upper</b> hinge pin <b>is prohibited in both</b> places, as this is considered building, a labor prohibited by Torah law, which applies everywhere. <b>Rabbi Yehuda says:</b> Restoring <b>the upper</b> hinge pin to its place is permitted <b>in the Temple, while</b> one may restore <b>the lower one</b> to its place even <b>in</b> the rest of <b>the country.</b>", | |
| "<b>One</b> may <b>return</b> to its place <b>a bandage</b> that became detached from a wound on Shabbat <b>in the Temple.</b> In the Temple, this is not prohibited as a preventive measure, lest one come to spread the ointment and thereby perform the prohibited labor of smoothing. <b>However,</b> one may <b>not</b> return a bandage to its place <b>in</b> the rest of <b>the country. If</b> one sought to apply the bandage <b>for the first time</b> to an untreated wound on Shabbat, <b>it is prohibited in both</b> places. <b>One</b> may <b>tie up</b> on Shabbat <b>a string [<i>nima</i>]</b> that came loose from a harp used <b>in the Temple, but not in</b> the rest of <b>the country. And</b> tying the string to the harp for <b>the first time is prohibited</b> both <b>here and there.</b> A wart is an example of a blemish that temporarily disqualifies a priest from performing the Temple service, and disqualifies an animal from being offered on the altar; they regain their fitness once the wart is removed. Consequently, on Shabbat <b>one</b> may <b>cut off a wart</b> by hand <b>in the Temple,</b> as this constitutes a preparatory act required for the sacrificial service. <b>However,</b> he may <b>not</b> cut off a wart <b>in</b> the rest of <b>the country. And if</b> he seeks to cut off the wart <b>with an instrument, it is prohibited in both</b> places.", | |
| "With regard to <b>a priest who was injured on his finger</b> on Shabbat, <b>he</b> may temporarily <b>wrap it with a reed</b> so that his wound is not visible while he is serving in the Temple. This leniency applies <b>in the Temple, but not in the country,</b> as it also heals the wound, and medical treatment is prohibited on Shabbat due to rabbinic decree. <b>If</b> his intention <b>is to draw blood</b> from the wound or to absorb blood, <b>it is prohibited in both</b> places. <b>One</b> may <b>scatter salt</b> on Shabbat <b>on</b> the <b>ramp</b> that leads to the altar <b>so that</b> the priests will <b>not slip</b> on their way up. <b>And</b> likewise, <b>one</b> may <b>draw water from the Cistern of the Exiles and from the Great Cistern,</b> which were located in the Temple, <b>by</b> means of <b>the wheel</b> designed for drawing water, even <b>on Shabbat. And</b> one may draw water <b>from the Heker Well</b> only <b>on a Festival.</b>", | |
| "With regard to the carcass of <b>a creeping animal,</b> of one of the eight species of reptile or rodent listed in Leviticus 11:29–30, one of the primary sources of ritual impurity <b>that is found in the Temple, a priest</b> should <b>carry it out</b> on Shabbat <b>in his girdle,</b> which was one of the priestly garments. Although the girdle will be defiled by the carcass of the creeping animal, this is the best way to proceed, <b>so as not to delay</b> the removal of <b>the impurity</b> from the Temple. This is <b>the statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka. Rabbi Yehuda says:</b> The creeping animal carcass should be removed <b>with wooden prongs, so as not to increase the impurity,</b> as a wooden prong is not susceptible to impurity. It is obvious that on a weekday the creeping animal carcass is removed from wherever it is found in the Temple, but <b>from where does one remove it</b> on Shabbat? <b>From the Sanctuary, from the Entrance Hall, and from</b> the area in the courtyard <b>between the Entrance Hall and the altar,</b> the most sanctified precincts of the Temple. However, it need not be removed from the rest of the courtyard. This is <b>the statement of Rabbi Shimon ben Nannas.</b> <b>Rabbi Akiva says: Any place where one is liable to</b> be punished with <b><i>karet</i></b> if he <b>intentionally</b> enters there in a state of ritual impurity, <b>and</b> is liable to bring a <b>sin-offering</b> if he does so <b>unwittingly, from there one</b> must <b>remove it.</b> This includes the entire area of the Temple courtyard. <b>And</b> as for <b>the rest of the places</b> in the Temple, <b>one covers</b> the creeping animal carcass <b>with a bowl [<i>pesakhter</i>]</b> and leaves it there until the conclusion of Shabbat. <b>Rabbi Shimon says</b> that this is the principle: <b>Wherever the Sages permitted</b> something <b>to you, they granted you</b> only <b>from your own, as they permitted to you only</b> activities that are prohibited <b>due to rabbinic decree,</b> not labors prohibited by Torah law." | |
| ] | |
| ], | |
| "versions": [ | |
| [ | |
| "William Davidson Edition - English", | |
| "https://korenpub.com/collections/the-noe-edition-koren-talmud-bavli-1" | |
| ] | |
| ], | |
| "heTitle": "משנה עירובין", | |
| "categories": [ | |
| "Mishnah", | |
| "Seder Moed" | |
| ], | |
| "sectionNames": [ | |
| "Chapter", | |
| "Mishnah" | |
| ] | |
| } |