Parallel
עירובין 43:1
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
are made only to keep the water out. Then why does not Rabbah give the same reason as R. Zera? — He can answer you: Where the ship moves no one disputes [that it is permitted to walk through it]; they only differ in the case where it stopped. Said R. Nahman b. Isaac: From our Mishnah also it may be inferred that they do not differ in the case of a ship that was on the move. Whence? From the statement: IT ONCE HAPPENED THAT THEY WERE COMING FROM BRINDISI AND, WHILE THEIR SHIP WAS SAILING IN THE SEA, R. GAMALIEL AND R. ELEAZAR B. AZARIAH WALKED ABOUT THROUGHOUT ITS AREA BUT R. JOSHUA AND R. AKIBA DID NOT MOVE BEYOND FOUR CUBITS BECAUSE THEY DESIRED TO IMPOSE A RESTRICTION UPON THEMSELVES. Now if it be granted that there is no difference of Opinion between them in the case where a ship is on the move it was perfectly correct to state, THEY DESIRED’, since the ship might have stopped; but if it be maintained that they differ [even in such a case], what is the sense in saying, ‘THEY DESIRED, TO IMPOSE A RESTRICTION’ [seeing that in their view walking beyond four cubits] is a prohibition? R. Ashi said: The inference from our Mishnah also proves [that the dispute between the Tannas mentioned relates to a stationary ship]. For SHIP was mentioned in the same way as A CATTLE-PEN and A CATTLE-FOLD; as a cattle-pen and a cattle-fold are stationary, so is the ship mentioned, one that was stationary. R. Aha the son of Raba said to R. Ashi: The law is in agreement with R. Gamaliel in the case of a ship. ‘The law’ [you say]; does this then imply that the others differ from him? — Yes; and so it was also taught: Hanania stated: All that day they sat and discussed the question of the halachah and in the evening my father's brother decided that the halachah was in agreement with R. Gamaliel in the case of a ship and the halachah was [in agreement] with R. Akiba in that of a cattle-pen and a cattle-fold. R. Hanania enquired: Is the law of Sabbath limits applicable at a height above ten handbreadths from the ground or not? There can be no question in respect of a column that was ten handbreadths high and four handbreadths wide, since it is regarded as solid ground. The question, however, arises in respect of a column that was ten handbreadths high but less than four handbreadths in width, or where one moves by means of a miraculous leap (another version: In a ship). Now what is the law? — R. Hoshaia replied: Come and hear: IT ONCE HAPPENED THAT THEY WERE COMING FROM BRINDISI AND, WHILE THEIR SHIP WAS SAILING IN THE SEA etc. Now, if it be granted that the law of Sabbath limits is applicable one can well see the reason why they ‘DESIRED? but if it is contended that the law of the Sabbath limits is inapplicable, why [it may be asked] did they desire? — As Raba explained below that the reference was to a ship that sailed in shallow waters so it may here also be explained that the reference is to a ship that sailed in shallow water. Come and hear: ONCE [ON A SABBATH] THEY DID NOT ENTER THE HARBOUR UNTIL DUSK etc. Now, if it be granted that the law of Sabbath limits is applicable [their action] was perfectly correct; but if it be contended that the law of Sabbath limits is inapplicable, what [it may be asked] could it have mattered if [they had] not [been assured:] WE WERE ALREADY WITHIN THE SABBATH LIMIT? — Raba replied: That was a case where the ship sailed in shallow waters. Come and hear: Who was it that delivered the seven traditional rulings on a Sabbath morning to R. Hisda at Sura and on the same Sabbath evening to Rabbah at Pumbeditha? Was it not Elijah who delivered them, which proves, does it not, that the law of Sabbath limits is inapplicable above ten handbreadths from the ground? — It is possible that the demon Joseph delivered them. Come and hear: [If a man said,] ‘Let me be a nazirite on the day on which the son of David comes’, he may drink wine on Sabbaths and festival days,
—