Parallel
עירובין 22
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
who for their sake rises early [to go] to, and remains late in the evening [before returning home from] the schoolhouse. Rabbah explained: [You find these only] with him who for their sake blackens his face like a raven. Raba explained: With him who can bring himself to be cruel to his children and household like a raven, as was the case with R. Adda b. Mattenah. He was about to go away to a schoolhouse when his wife said to him, ‘What shall I do with your children?’ — ‘Are there’, he retorted: ‘no more herbs in the marsh?’ And repayeth them that hate Him to His face, to destroy him. R. Joshua b. Levi remarked: Were it not for the written text one could not possibly have said it. Like a man, as it were, who carries a burden on his face and wants to throw it off. He will not be slack to him that hateth Him. R. Il'a explained: He will not be slack to those that hate Him, but He will be slack to those who are just in all respects; and this is in line with that which R. Joshua b. Levi stated: What [is the implication of] what was written: Which I command thee this day to do them? ‘This day [you are] to do them’ but you cannot postpone doing them for tomorrow; ‘this day [you are in a position] to do them’ and tomorrow [is reserved] for receiving reward for [doing] them. R. Haggai (or as some say: R. Samuel b. Nahmani) stated: What [was the purpose] when Scripture wrote: Long-suffering [in the dual form] where the singular might well have been used? But [this is the purport:] Long-suffering towards the righteous and long-suffering also towards the wicked. R. JUDAH SAID: [THE ENCLOSURE MAY BE ONLY] AS LARGE AS TWO BETH SE'AH etc. The question was raised: Does he mean the [area of the] cistern together with [that between] the strips [of wood] or does he mean the cistern alone exclusive of the [area between] the strips? Does a man regard his cistern [as the permitted area] and, consequently, it is not necessary to restrict [the permitted area] as a preventive measure against the possibility of one's moving of objects in a karpaf that is larger than two both se'ah, or does a man rather regard his partition and, consequently, it was necessary to restrict [the permitted area] as a preventive measure against the possibility of assuming [that an area of] more than two beth se'ah [is permitted] in the case of a karpaf also? — Come and hear: How near may [the strips of wood] be? As near as [to admit] the head and the greater part of the body of a cow. And how far may they be? Even [so far as to enclose a beth] kor or even two beth kor. R. Judah ruled: [An area of] two beth se'ah is permitted but one larger than two beth se'ah is forbidden. ‘Do you not admit’, they said to R. Judah, ‘that in the case of a cattle-pen or cattle-fold, a rearcourt or a courtyard even [an area as large as] five or ten beth kor is permitted?’ He replied: This is [a proper] partition but those are mere strips [of wood]. R. Simeon b. Eleazar said: A cistern [the area of which is] two beth se'ah by two beth se'ah is permitted, and [the Rabbis] permitted to remove [the strips of wood from, it] only so far [as to admit] the head and the greater part of the body of a cow. Now, since R. Simeon b. Eleazar spoke of the cistern exclusive of the strips [of wood] it follows, does it not, that R. Judah spoke of the cistern together with the strips? — [In fact,] however, this is not [correct]. R. Judah spoke of the cistern exclusive of the [area between it and] the strips. If so, [is not his ruling] exactly the same as that of R. Simeon b. Eleazar? — The practical difference between them is [an enclosure that is] long and narrow. R. Simeon b. Eleazar laid down a general rule: Any [enclosed] space used as a dwelling as, for instance, a cattle-pen or cattle-fold, a rearcourt or a courtyard is permitted even if it is as large as five or even ten beth kor, and any dwelling that is used for [service in] the air [outside] as, for instance, field huts is permitted [only if its area is] two beth se'ah but if it is more than two beth se'ah it is forbidden. MISHNAH. R. JUDAH RULED: IF A PUBLIC ROAD CUTS THROUGH THEM IT SHOULD BE DIVERTED TO ONE SIDE; BUT THE SAGES RULED: THIS IS NOT NECESSARY. GEMARA. Both R. Johanan and R. Eleazar stated: Here they informed you of the unassailable validity of partitions. ‘Here [etc.]’ [seems to imply that] he is of the same opinion; but did not Rabbah b. Bar Hana state in the name of R. Johanan: Jerusalem, were it not that its gates were closed at night, would have been subject to the restrictions of a public domain? — Rather: ‘Here [etc.]’, but he himself is not of the same opinion. An incongruity, however, was pointed out between two rulings of R. Judah and between two rulings of the Rabbis. For it was taught: A more [lenient rule] than this did R. Judah lay down: If a man had two houses on two sides [respectively] of a public domain he may construct one side-post on one side [of any of the houses] and another on the other side, or one cross-beam on the one side and another on its other side and then he may move things about in the space between them; but they said to him: A public domain cannot be provided with an ‘erub in such a manner. Now does not this present a contradiction between one ruling of R. Judah and another ruling of his and between one ruling of the Rabbis and another ruling of theirs? — There is really no contradiction between the two rulings of R. Judah. There [it is a case] where two proper walls are available, but here two proper walls are not available. There is no contradiction between the two rulings of the Rabbis either, since here the name of four partitions at least is available, but there even the name of four partitions does not exist. R. Isaac b. Joseph stated in the name of R. Johanan: In the Land of Israel no guilt is incurred on account of [moving objects in] a public domain. R. Dimi sitting at his studies recited this traditional ruling. Said Abaye to R. Dimi. What is the reason?
—
If it be suggested: Because the Ladder of Tyre surrounds it on one side and the declivity of Geder on the other side, Babylon too [it could be retorted] is surrounded by the Euphrates on one side and the Tigris on the other side; the whole world, in fact, is surrounded by the ocean. Perhaps you mean the ascents and descents [of Palestine]. ‘Genius’, the other replied: ‘I saw your chief between the pillars when R. Johanan discoursed on this traditional ruling’. So it was also stated: When Rabin came he stated in the name of R. Johanan (others say: R. Abbahu stated in the name of R. Johanan): No guilt is incurred for [the carrying of objects in] a public domain [in the case of] the ascents and descents of the Land of Israel, because they are not [as accessible] as [the domain on which] the standards in the wilderness [marched]. Rehaba enquired of Raba: In the case of a mound that rises to a height of ten handbreadths on a base of four cubits, across which many people make their way, does one incur the guilt of [carrying in] a public domain or is no guilt incurred? This question does not arise according to the view of the Rabbis, for if there, where the use [of the road] is quite easy, the Rabbis ruled that the public do not impair the validity of the enclosure, how much more is that the case here where the use [of the road] is not easy. The question arises only according to R. Judah. Does he [maintain his view only] there because the use [of the road] is easy, but here, where its use is not easy, the public [he maintains] do not impair the validity of the [legal] partition, or is there perhaps no difference? — The other replied: Guilt is incurred. ‘Even’ [the first asked,] ‘if people ascend by means of a rope?’ — ‘Yes’, the other replied. [‘Is this the ruling’, the first asked,] ‘even in respect of the ascents of Beth Maron?’ — ‘Yes’, the other replied. He raised an objection against him: A courtyard into which many people enter from one side and go out from the other [is regarded as] a public domain in respect of levitical defilement and as a private domain in respect of the Sabbath. Now whose [view is here expressed]? If it be suggested: [That of the] Rabbis; it might be objected: If there, where the use [of the road] is easy, the Rabbis ruled that the public cannot come and impair the validity of the partition, how much more is that the case here where its use is not easy. Consequently it [must be, must it not, the view of] R. Judah? — No; it may in fact [represent the view of] the Rabbis, but the statement was required [on account of the ruling], ‘And a public domain in respect of levitical defilement’. Come and hear: Alleys that open out in cisterns, ditches or caves [have the status of] a private domain in respect of Sabbath and that of a Public one in respect of levitical defilement. Now can you imagine [a reading] ‘in cisterns’? [The reading must] consequently be, ‘towards cisterns’ [and about such alleys it was ruled that they have the status of] ‘a private domain in respect of Sabbath and that of a public one in respect of levitical defilement’. Now, whose [view is here expressed]? If it be suggested: That of the Rabbis; it could be objected: If there, where the use [of the road] is easy, they ruled that the public cannot come and annul its validity, how much more should this be the case here where its use is not easy. Consequently [it must be, must it not, the view of] R. Judah? — No; it may in fact [be the view of] the Rabbis, but the statement was required [on account of the ruling,] ‘And a public domain in respect of levitical defilement’. Come and hear: The paths of Beth Gilgul and such as are similar to them [have the status of] a private domain in respect of the Sabbath and that of a public domain in respect of levitical defilement. And what [paths may be described as] the ‘paths of Beth Gilgul’? At the school of R. Jannai it was laid down: Any [path along] which a slave carrying a se'ah of wheat is unable to run before an officer. Now, whose view [is this]? If it be suggested [that it is that of] the Rabbis, it might be objected: If there, where the use [of the road] is easy, the Rabbis ruled that the public cannot come and impair the validity of the partition, how much more would that be the case here where the use [of the paths] is not easy. Consequently [it must be, must it not, the view of] R. Judah? — The other replied: You speak of the paths of Beth Gilgul [which have a status of their own, for] Joshua, being a friend of Israel, undertook the task of providing for them roads and highways, and those that were easy of access he assigned for public use and those that were not easily accessible he assigned for private use. MISHNAH. STRIPS [OF WOOD] MAY BE PROVIDED FOR A PUBLIC CISTERN, A PUBLIC WELL AS WELL AS A PRIVATE WELL, BUT FOR A PRIVATE CISTERN A PARTITION TEN HANDBREADTHS HIGH MUST BE PROVIDED; SO R. AKIBA. R. JUDAH B. BABA RULED: STRIPS [OF WOOD] MAY BE SET UP ROUND A PUBLIC WELL ONLY WHILE FOR THE OTHERS A [ROPE] BELT TEN HANDBREADTHS IN HEIGHT MUST BE PROVIDED.
—