עירובין 79

79:1

but not if he did not expressly do so? — R. Huna replied: Who is it that taught Ohaloth? R. Jose. But how could it be the view of R. Jose seeing that he was heard to give a reverse ruling, for it was taught: R. Jose ruled, straw that was not likely to be removed is on a par with ordinary earth and is deemed to be abandoned; earth that is likely to be removed is on a par with ordinary stubble and is not deemed to be abandoned? — Rather, said R. Assi, who is it that taught ‘Erubin? It is R. Jose. R. Huna son of R. Joshua replied: You are pointing out an incongruity between a law concerning levitical uncleanness and one concerning Sabbath; leave alone the restrictions of the Sabbath since on it a person abandons even his purse. R. Ashi replied: You are pointing out an incongruity between a ruling concerning a house and one concerning a trench; a trench might well be expected to be filled up, but is a house also expected to be filled up? IF A BOARD FOUR HANDBREADTHS WIDE WAS PLACED ACROSS IT. Raba explained: This was taught only in the case where it was laid across the width of it but if it was laid lengthwise even a board of the minutest width also suffices, since the width of the trench is thereby reduced to less than four handbreadths. AND SO ALSO WHERE TWO BALCONIES WERE OPPOSITE ONE ANOTHER. Raba explained: With reference to what we learned, AND SO ALSO WHERE TWO BALCONIES etc. the ruling applies only to such as are opposite each other but not to such as are not opposite each other or to such as are above each other: and even in the case of such as are above each other the ruling applies only where there was a distance of three handbreadths between them but if there was no such distance between them they may both be regarded as one crooked balcony. MISHNAH. IF A HEAP OF STRAW BETWEEN TWO COURTYARDS YARDS WAS TEN HANDBREADTHS HIGH, TWO ‘ERUBS MAY BE PREPARED BUT NOT ONE. THE TENANTS OF THE ONE COURTYARD MAY FEED THEIR CATTLE AT THEIR SIDE AND THOSE OF THE OTHER COURTYARD MAY FEED THEIRS ON THE OTHER SIDE. IF THE HEIGHT OF THE STRAW HEAP WAS REDUCED TO LESS THAN TEN HANDBREADTHS, ONE ‘ERUB MAY BE PREPARED BUT NOT TWO. GEMARA. R. Huna observed: Provided no tenant puts any straw into his basket and feeds his cattle. It is then permitted to put cattle there; but did not R. Huna lay down in the name of R. Hanina: A man may put his beast on a stretch of grass on the Sabbath day but not upon mukzeh? — He only stands near the beast which itself goes and eats. ‘Provided no tenant puts any straw into his basket’. But was it not taught: If a house was between two courtyards and was filled with straw, two ‘erubs may be prepared but not one, and each tenant may put some straw into his basket and feed his cattle therewith. If the height of the straw was reduced to less than ten handbreadths, both are forbidden. How is one to proceed? One of the tenants locks his house and renounces his right to his share, and thereby he remains under restrictions but his friend is permitted. And the same law applies to a pit of straw between two Sabbath limits. At any rate, was it not here stated: ‘each’ tenant may put some straw into his basket and feed his cattle therewith’? — I might reply: In the case of a house, since it has a ceiling, the reduction in the straw is quite noticeable, but here the diminution is not noticeable. ‘If the height of the straw was reduced to less than ten handbreadths both are forbidden’. But, it follows, if it was ten handbreadths high this is permitted even though the ceiling was much higher. May it not then be inferred that partitions that do not reach the ceiling are regarded as valid ones? — Abaye replied: We are here dealing with the case of a house that was thirteen handbreadths minus a fraction in height and that of the straw was ten handbreadths in height. R. Huna son of R. Joshua, however, replied: It may even refer to a house that was ten handbreadths high

—

79:2

but the straw was seven handbreadths and a fraction, since a distance of less than three handbreadths is regarded as labud. According to Abaye one can well understand why the expression ‘than ten’ was used; according to R. Huna son of R. Joshua, however, what could be the purport of ‘than ten’? — ‘Than the statutory height of ten’. ‘Both are forbidden’. Does this then imply that tenants who arrived on a Sabbath impose restrictions? — No; since it is possible that the reduction occurred on the previous day. ‘How is one to proceed? One of the tenants locks his house and renounces his right to his share’. Both [acts]? — It is this that was meant: He either locks his house or renounces his right to his share. And if you prefer I might say: Both [acts] are in fact necessary for, having been in the habit of using it, he might continue to move objects into it. ‘He remains under restrictions but his friend is permitted’. Is not this obvious? — This ruling was required only in the case where the other tenant had subsequently renounced his share to the former, and it is this that we were informed: That a renunciation may not follow a previous renunciation. ‘And the same law applies to a pit of straw between two Sabbath limits’. Is not this perfectly obvious? — The ruling was required only according to the view of R. Akiba who holds that the ordinance of Sabbath limits is Pentateuchal. Since it might have been presumed that a preventive measure should be enacted against the possibility of exchange, hence we were informed that no such preventive measure was deemed necessary. MISHNAH. HOW IS SHITTUF IN AN ALLEY EFFECTED? ONE [OF THE RESIDENTS] PLACES THERE A JAR AND DECLARES, ‘THIS BELONGS TO ALL THE RESIDENTS OF THE ALLEY’. AND HE CONFERS POSSESSION UPON THEM THROUGH HIS GROWNUP SON OR DAUGHTER, THROUGH HIS HEBREW MANSERVANT OR MAIDSERVANT OR THROUGH HIS WIFE; BUT HE MAY NOT CONFER POSSESSION EITHER THROUGH HIS SON OR DAUGHTER, IF THEY ARE MINORS, OR THROUGH HIS CANAANITE BONDMAN OR BONDWOMAN, BECAUSE THEIR HAND IS AS HIS HAND. GEMARA. Rab Judah ruled: A jar for the shittuf of alleys must be raised from the ground to the height of a handbreadth. Raba observed: These two rulings were given by the elders of Pumbeditha: One is the ruling just cited. The other is the following: He who recites the kiddush has performed his duty if he tastes a mouthful, otherwise he does not. R. Habiba observed: The following ruling also was given by the elders of Pumbeditha. For Rab Judah stated in the name of Samuel: A fire for a woman in childbirth may be made on the Sabbath. From this one might understand that a fire may be made only for a woman in childbirth but not for any other sick person, only in the rainy season but not in the summer season. It was, however, stated: R. Hiyya b. Abin citing Samuel ruled: If a person has been bled and felt chilly a fire may be made for him on the Sabbath even during the hottest period of the year. Amemar observed, ‘The following ruling also was given by the elders of Pumbeditha, for it was stated: What is an Asherah by implication? Rab said: Any tree that is guarded by heathen priests

—