עירובין 43

43:1

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,

—

43:2

but is forbidden to drink wine on any of the weekdays. Now, if it is granted that the law of Sabbath limits is applicable, it is quite intelligible why the man is permitted [to drink wine] on Sabbaths and festival days; but if it be contended that the law of Sabbath limits is inapplicable why [it may be asked] is it permitted [for the man to drink wine] on Sabbaths and festival days? — There the case is different since Scripture said: Behold I will send you Elijah the prophet etc. and Elijah, surely, did not come on the previous day. If so, even in the case of weekdays, [the drinking of wine] should be permitted on any day since Elijah did not come on the previous day? But the fact is that we assume that he appeared before the high court, then why should we not here also assume that he appeared before the high court? — Israel has long ago been assured that Elijah would not come either on Sabbath eves or on festival eves owing to the people's pre-occupation. Assuming that as Elijah would not come the Messiah also would not come, why should not [the drinking of wine] be permitted on a Sabbath eve? — Elijah would not, but the Messiah might come because the moment the Messiah comes all will be anxious to serve Israel. [But why should not the drinking of wine] be permissible on a Sunday? May it then be derived from this that the law of Sabbath limits is inapplicable for had it been applicable [the drinking of wine] should have been permissible on a Sunday since Elijah did not arrive on the preceding Sabbath? — That Tanna was really in doubt as to whether the law of Sabbath limits was or was not applicable, and his ruling is just a restriction. On what day, however, did the man make his vow? If it be suggested that he did it on a weekday [the difficulty would arise:] Since the naziriteship had once taken effect how could the Sabbath subsequently annul it? — The fact is that the man is assumed to have made his vow on a Sabbath or on a festival day, and it is on that day only that he is permitted [to drink wine]. Subsequently however, this is forbidden to him. ONCE [ON A SABBATH] THEY DID NOT ENTER THE HARBOUR etc. A Tanna taught: R. Gamaliel had a tube through which he could see at a distance of two thousand cubits across the land and a corresponding distance across the sea. If a man desires to ascertain the depth of a ravine let him use a tube and by looking through it be in a position to ascertain the depth of the ravine, and if he wishes to ascertain the height of a palm-tree let him measure his own height and the length of his shadow as well as that of the shadow of the tree, and he will thus ascertain the height of the palm-tree. If a man desires to prevent wild beasts from sheltering in the shadow of a grave [mound] let him insert a rod [in the ground] during the fourth hour of the day and observe in which direction its shadow inclines and then make [the mound] slope [from the ground] upwards and [from its top] downwards. Nehemiah son of R. Hanilai was [once on a Sabbath day] absorbed in an oral study and walked out beyond the Sabbath limit. ‘Your disciple Nehemiah’, said R. Hisda to R. Nahman, ‘is in distress’. ‘Draw up for him’, the other replied: ‘a wall of human beings and let him re-enter’. R. Nahman b. Isaac was sitting behind Raba while the latter sat before R. Nahman when R. Nahman b. Isaac said to Raba: What exactly was the point that R. Hisda raised? If it be suggested that we are dealing [here with a case where the distance could be] fully lined with men and that the point he raised was whether the halachah was in agreement with R. Gamaliel39

—