עירובין 17

17:1

Is then the first clause [in agreement with] R. Jose and the final clause [only in agreement with the] Rabbis? — Yes, because his father adopts the same line. R. Giddal stated in the name of Rab: Three [persons are sometimes] forbidden in five [beth se'ah, and sometimes] permitted [even] in an area of seven. ‘Did Rab’, they asked him, ‘really say so?’ — ‘[By] the Law, the Prophets and the Writings, [I can answer]’, he said to them, ‘that Rab did say, so’. Said R. Ashi: But what is the difficulty? It is possible that he meant this: If they required six beth se'ah and they surrounded an area of seven they are permitted even in all the seven; and if they required only one of five beth se'ah but surrounded one of seven they are forbidden even the five beth se'ah. But then what of what was taught: ‘Provided there be no two beth se'ah unoccupied’, does not this mean: Unoccupied by human beings? — No; unoccupied by objects. It was stated: [On the question of the extent of the area permitted where there were] three persons and one of them died, or two and their number was increased, R. Huna and R. Isaac [are in dispute]. One maintains that Sabbath is the determining factor and the other maintains that the determining factor is [the number of actual] tenants. You may conclude that it is R. Huna who held that the determining factor was the Sabbath. For Rabbah stated: ‘I enquired of R. Huna (and also of Rab Judah) as to what [was the law where] an ‘erub was laid in reliance on a certain door and that door was blocked up, or on a certain window and that window was stopped up, and he replied: Since permission for the Sabbath was once granted the permissibility continues [until the day is concluded]’. This is conclusive. Must it be assumed that R. Huna and R. Isaac differ on the same principle as that on which R. Jose and R. Judah differed? For we learned: If a breach was made in two sides of a courtyard and so also if a breach was made in two sides of a house, or if the cross-beam or side-post of an alley was removed [the tenants] are permitted [their use] for that Sabbath but forbidden on future [Sabbaths]; so R. Judah. R. Jose ruled: Whatever they are permitted for that Sabbath they are permitted for future [Sabbaths], and whatever they are forbidden for future [Sabbaths] they are also forbidden for that Sabbath. Must it then be assumed that R. Huna is of the same opinion as R. Judah while R. Isaac is of that of R. Jose? — R. Huna can tell you, ‘I can maintain my view even in accordance with that of R. Jose; for R. Jose maintained his view there only because there were no partitions, but here there are partitions’. And R. Isaac can tell you,’I can maintain my view even in agreement with R. Judah; for R. Judah upheld his view there only because the tenants were in existence, but here there was not a [sufficient number of] tenants’. AND THE SAGES RULED: ONE OF THE TWO [IS ENOUGH]. Is not this ruling precisely the same as that of the first Tanna? — The practical difference between them is the case of an individual in an inhabited area. MISHNAH. [OF] FOUR OBLIGATIONS WAS EXEMPTION GRANTED [TO WARRIORS] IN A CAMP: THEY MAY BRING WOOD FROM ANYWHERE, THEY ARE EXEMPT FROM THE WASHING OF THE HANDS, FROM [THE RESTRICTIONS OF] DEMAI AND FROM THE DUTY OF PREPARING AN ‘ERUB. GEMARA. Our Rabbis learned: An army that goes out to an optional war are permitted to commandeer dry wood. R. Judah b. Tema ruled: They may also encamp in any place, and are to be buried where they are killed. ‘Are permitted to commandeer dry wood’. Was not this, however, an enactment of Joshua, for a Master stated that Joshua laid down ten stipulations [which included the following:] That [people] shall be allowed to feed their cattle in the woods and to gather wood from their fields? — [The enactment] there related to thorns and shrubs [while the ruling] here refers to other kinds of wood. Or else: There [it is a case of trees] that are attached [to the ground, while the ruling] here [refers to such] as were [already] detached. Or else: There [it is a case] of fresh, and here [it is one] of dry [wood]. ‘R. Judah b. Tema ruled: They may also encamp in any place, and are to be buried where they are killed’. Is not this obvious, since [a killed warrior is] a meth mizwah and a meth mizwah acquires [the right to be buried on] the spot where it is found? — [This ruling was] required only [for the following case:] Although

—

17:2

he has friends who would bury [him he is to be buried where he was killed]. For it was taught: Who is deemed a meth mizwah? Any person who has no one to bury him. Were he, however, to call [for help] and others answer him, he is not [to be regarded as] a meth mizwah. But does a meth mizwah acquire [the right to be buried on] the spot where it is found? Was it not in fact taught: If a man found a corpse lying in the road, he may remove it to the right of the road or to the left of the road: [if on the one side there was] an uncultivated, and [on the other] a fallow field, he should remove it to the uncultivated field; a fallow field and a field with seeds, he should remove it to the fallow field; if both fields were fallow, sown, or uncultivated he may remove it to whichever side he wishes? — R. Bibi replied: Here we are dealing with a corpse that lay across a narrow path, and since permission was granted to remove it from the path one may also move it to whichever side one pleases. THEY ARE EXEMPT FROM THE WASHING OF THE HANDS. Abaye stated: This was taught only in respect of the washing before a meal, but the washing after a meal is obligatory. R. Hiyya b. Ashi stated: Why did the Rabbis rule that washing after a meal is obligatory? Because there exists a certain Sodomitic salt that causes blindness. And, said Abaye, it is found in the proportion of one grain to a kor [in any kind of salt]. Said R. Aha son of Raba to R. Ashi: What [is your ruling where] one has measured out any salt? This, the other replied, is perfectly obvious. FROM [THE RESTRICTIONS OF] DEMAI, for we learned: Poor men and billeted troops may be fed with demai. R. Huna stated: One taught: Beth Shammai ruled: Poor men and billeted troops may not be fed with demai, and Beth Hillel ruled: Poor men and billeted troops may be fed with demai. AND FROM THE DUTY OF PREPARING AN ‘ERUB. It was stated at the schoolhouse of R. Jannai: [This ruling] was taught only in regard to an ‘erub of courtyards but their obligation to an ‘erub of boundaries remains unaffected, since R. Hiyya taught: For [transgressing the laws of] ‘erub of boundaries flogging is incurred [in accordance with] Pentateuchal Law. R. Jonathan demurred: Is flogging incurred on account of a prohibition implied in Al? R. Aha b. Jacob demurred: Now then, since it is written in Scripture: Turn ye not unto them that have familiar spirits, nor unto the wizards, should no flogging be incurred in that case also? — It was this difficulty that R. Jonathan felt: [Is not this] a prohibition that was given to [authorize] a warning of death at the hands of Beth din and for any prohibition given to [authorize] a warning of death no flogging is incurred? — R. Ashi replied: Is it written in Scripture, ‘Let no man carry out ? It is [in fact] written: Let no man go out. CHAPTER II MISHNAH. WELLS MAY BE PROVIDED WITH STRIPS OF WOOD [BY FIXING] FOUR CORNER-PIECES THAT HAVE THE APPEARANCE OF EIGHT [SINGLE STRIPS]; SO R. JUDAH. R. MEIR RULED: EIGHT [STRIPS THAT] HAVE THE APPEARANCE OF TWELVE [MUST BE SET UP], FOUR BEING CORNER-PIECES AND FOUR SINGLE [STRIPS]. THEIR HEIGHT [MUST BE] TEN HANDBREADTHS, THEIR WIDTH SIX, AND THEIR THICKNESS [MAY BE] OF ANY SIZE WHATSOEVER. BETWEEN THEM [THERE MAY BE] AS MUCH [SPACE AS TO ADMIT] TWO TEAMS OF THREE OXEN EACH; SO R. MEIR; BUT R. JUDAH SAID: OF FOUR [OXEN EACH, THESE TEAMS BEING] TIED TOGETHER AND NOT APART [BUT THERE MAY BE SPACE ENOUGH FOR] ONE TO ENTER WHILE THE OTHER GOES OUT. IT IS PERMITTED TO BRING [THE STRIPS] CLOSE TO THE WELL, PROVIDED A COW CAN BE WITHIN [THE ENCLOSURE WITH] ITS HEAD AND THE GREATER PART OF ITS BODY WHEN DRINKING. IT IS PERMITTED

—