Parallel
עירובין 55
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
This is in harmony with the following statement of R. Abdimi b. Hama b. Dosa: What is the significance of the text: It is not in heaven, [that thou shouldst say: ‘who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us’], neither is it beyond the sea [that thou shouldst sat, ‘Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us’]? ‘It is not in heaven’, for if it were in heaven you should have gone up after it; and if it were ‘beyond the sea’, you should have gone over the sea after it. Raba expounded, ‘It is not in heaven’, it is not to be found with him who, because he possesses some knowledge of it, towers in his pride as high as the heavens, ‘[neither is it beyond the sea’] it is not found with him who, because of some knowledge of it, is as expansive in his self-esteem as the sea. R. Johanan expounded: ‘It is not in heaven’, it is not to be found among the arrogant; ‘neither is it beyond the sea’, it is not to be found among merchants or dealers. Our Rabbis taught: How are the sabbath boundaries of towns extended? [If a town is] long the sabbath limits are measured from its normal boundaries. If it is round corners are added to it. If it is square no corners are added to it. If it was wide on one side and narrow on the other it is regarded as if both its sides were equal. If one house projected like a turret, or if two houses projected like two turrets, they are to be treated as if a thread had been drawn beside them in a straight line, and the two thousand cubits are measured from that line outwards. If the town was shaped like a bow or like a gamma, it is to be regarded as if it had been full of houses and courtyards, and the two thousand cubits are measured from the imaginary boundaries outwards. The Master said: ‘[If a town is] long the Sabbath limits are measured from its normal boundaries’. But is this not obvious? — The ruling is required in a case where it was long but narrow. Since it might have been presumed that the width should be regarded as equal to its length. we were informed [that the law was not so]. ‘If it is square shaped no corners are added to it’. Is not this obvious? — This was only required in a case where it is square shaped but the sides of the square are not parallel with the four directions of the world. As it might have been presumed that it should be deemed to be enclosed in an imaginary square whose sides are parallel with the four directions of the world, we were informed [that this is not permitted]. ‘If one house projected like a turret, or if two houses projected like two turrets’. Now that you said that the law applied to one house, was it also necessary to mention two houses? — The ruling was necessary in that case only where the two houses were respectively on two sides of the town. As it might have been presumed that we apply the law only where a projecting house was on one side but not when houses were projecting on two sides, we were informed [that the law is applied to the latter case also]. ‘If the town was shaped like a bow or like a gamma, it is to be regarded as if it had been full of houses and courtyards, and the two thousand cubits are measured from its imaginary boundaries’. R. Huna laid down: If a town is shaped like a bow, then, if the distance between its two ends is less than four thousand cubits, the Sabbath limits are measured from the bow-string, otherwise measuring must begin from the arch. But could R. Huna have laid down such a ruling? Did not R. Huna in fact rule: If a breach was made in a town wall, [the houses on both sides of the breach are regarded as belonging to the same town if the distance between them is] no more than a hundred and forty-one and a third cubits? — Rabbah b. ‘Ulla replied: This is no difficulty, since the former deals with a case where the gap was only on one side while the latter deals with one that had breaches on two sides. Then what does he inform us? That a karpaf is allowed for each section. But did not R. Huna once lay down such a ruling, as we learned:
—
A karpaf is allowed for every town; so R. Meir, but the Sages ruled: A karpaf was allowed only between two towns, and in connect ion with this it was stated: R. Huna laid down: A karpaf is allowed for each town, while R. Hiyya b. Rab held: Only one karpaf is allowed for both towns? — Both rulings were required. For if we had been informed only of the ruling here, it might have been presumed [to apply to this case only] because originally all the town was a permitted domain, but not to the case there. And if we had been informed of the ruling there only, it might have been presumed [to apply to that case alone] because [one karpaf is] too cramped for the use of two towns, but not here where the space of one karpaf would not be too cramped. Hence both rulings were required. And what perpendicular distance is allowed between the [middle of the imaginary] bow-string and the arch?-Rabbah son of R. Huna replied: One of two thousand cubits. Raba the son of Rabbah son of R. Huna replied: Even one greater than two thousand cubits. Said Abaye: Logical reasoning is in agreement with Raba the son of Rabbah son of R. Huna, since any person can, if he wishes, go around by way of the houses. IF THERE WERE RUINS TEN HANDBREADTHS HIGH etc. What is meant by RUINS? — Rab Judah replied: Three walls without a roof on them. The question was raised: What is the ruling in the case of two walls upon which there was a roof? Come and hear: The following are included in the Sabbath boundary of a town. A sepulchral monument of the size of four cubits by four, a bridge or a cemetery that contains a dwelling chamber, a synagogue that has a dwelling-house for the hazan, a heathen temple that contains a dwelling-house for its priests, horse-stalls or storehouses In open fields, to which dwelling-chambers are attached, watchmen's huts in a field, and a house on a sea island. All these are included in the Sabbath boundary of a town. The following, however, are not included in it: A sepulchral monument that was broken on two sides, the gap extending from one end to the other, a bridge or a cemetery that contains no dwelling-chamber, a synagogue that had no dwelling-house for the hazan, a heathen temple that contained no dwelling-house for its priests, horse-stalls or storehouses in open fields, to which dwelling chambers are not attached, a pit, a ditch, a cave, a wall or a dove-cote in a field, and a house in a ship. All these are not included in the Sabbath boundary of a town. At all events It was here taught: ‘A sepulchral monument that was broken on two sides, the gap extending from one end to the other’. Does not this refer to a case where there was a roof on top? — No, it may be a case where there was no roof on top. Of what use is a ‘house on a sea island’? — R. Papa replied: The reference here is to a house into which a ship's tackle is moved. But is not a ‘cave’ included in the Sabbath boundary of a town? Did not R. Hiyya in fact teach: A cave is included in the Sabbath boundary of a town? — Abaye replied: He referred to a cave at the entrance of which was a built structure. Might not then its inclusion be inferred solely on the ground of the structure? — The ruling was required only in a case where the cave supplemented the prescribed size. R. Huna ruled: For those who dwell in huts the Sabbath limits are measured from the very doors of their huts. R. Hisda raised an objection: And they pitched by the Jordan, from Beth-yeshimoth, in connection with which Rabbah b. Bar Hana stated: ‘I myself saw the place and it measured three parasangs by three’. Now was it not taught: When they attended to their needs they turned neither front nor sideways but backwards? — Raba answered him: You speak of the divisions in the wilderness! Since about them it is written: At the commandment of the Lord they encamped and at the commandment of the Lord they journeyed, they could well be regarded as constituting a permanent settlement. R. Hinena b. R. Kahana ruled in the name of R. Ashi: If among the huts there are three courtyards of two houses each, all the encampment assumes the characteristics of a permanent settlement. Rab Judah citing Rab remarked: Dwellers in huts and travelers in the desert lead a miserable life, and their wives and children are not really their own. So it was also taught: Eliezer of Biria remarked: Those who dwell in huts are like those who dwell in graves, and concerning their daughters Scripture says: Cursed be he that lieth with any manner of beast. What is the reason? Ulla explained: Because they have no bath houses; and R. Johanan explained: Because they [allow each other to] perceive the times of their ritual immersion. What is the practical difference between them? — The case where a river is near the house. R. Huna said: No scholar should dwell in a town where vegetables are unobtainable. This then implies that vegetables are wholesome, but was it not taught: Three kinds of food increase One s excrements, bend one's stature and take away a five hundredth part of the human eyesight, viz.
—