עירובין 86

86:1

‘Make room for the owner of two hundred maneh’. ‘Master’, said R. Ishmael son of R. Jose to him, ‘the father of this man owns a thousand ships on the sea and a corresponding number of towns on land’. ‘When you meet his father’, the other replied: ‘tell him not to send him to me in such clothes’. Rabbi showed respect to rich men, and R. Akiba also showed respect to rich men, in agreement with an exposition made by Raba b. Mari: May he be enthroned before God for ever, appoint mercy and truth that they may preserve him, when ‘may he be enthroned before God for ever’? When he ‘appoint mercy and truth that they may preserve him’. Rabbah b. Bar Hana explained: The pill of the plough, for instance. R. Nahman stated: It was taught at the school of Samuel: If it is an object that may be handled on the Sabbath the tenant imposes restrictions, but if it is one that may not be handled on the Sabbath the tenant imposes no restrictions. So it was also taught: If he has tebel, bars of metal, or any other object that may not be moved on the Sabbath, the tenant imposes no restrictions. MISHNAH. IF A MAN LEFT HIS HOUSE AND WENT TO SPEND THE SABBATH IN ANOTHER TOWN, WHETHER HE WAS A GENTILE OR AN ISRAELITE, HIS SHARE IMPOSES RESTRICTIONS ON THE RESIDENTS OF THE COURTYARD; SO R. MEIR, R. JUDAH RULED: IT IMPOSES NO RESTRICTIONS. R. JOSE RULED: THE SHARE OF A GENTILE IMPOSES RESTRICTIONS; BUT THAT OF AN ISRAELITE DOES NOT IMPOSE ANY RESTRICTIONS BECAUSE IT IS NOT USUAL FOR AN ISRAELITE TO RETURN ON THE SABBATH. R. SIMEON RULED: EVEN IF HE LEFT HIS HOUSE AND WENT TO SPEND THE SABBATH WITH HIS DAUGHTER IN THE SAME TOWN HIS SHARE IMPOSES NO RESTRICTION, SINCE HE HAD NO INTENTION WHATEVER OF RETURNING. GEMARA. Rab stated: The halachah is in agreement with R. SIMEON. This, however, applies only [where the man went to spend the Sabbath with] his daughter but not [where he went to spend it with] his son; for it is a common saying: ‘If a dog barks at you, go in; if a bitch barks at you go out’. MISHNAH. FROM A CISTERN BETWEEN TWO COURTYARDS NO WATER MAY BE DRAWN ON THE SABBATH UNLESS A PARTITION TEN HANDBREADTHS HIGH HAS BEEN MADE FOR IT EITHER BELOW OR WITHIN ITS RIM. R. SIMEON B. GAMALIEL STATED, BETH SHAMMAI RULED: BELOW, AND BETH HILLEL RULED: ABOVE. R. JUDAH OBSERVED: THE PARTITION COULD NOT BE MORE EFFECTIVE THAN THE INTERVENING WALL. GEMARA. R. Huna explained: BELOW means actually below, and ABOVE means actually above, and in either case the partition must be within the cistern. Rab Judah, however, explained: BELOW means below the water, and ABOVE means above the water. Said Rabbah son of R. Hanan to Abaye: With reference to Rab Judah's submission that ‘BELOW means below the water’ why did he not explain, ‘actually below’? Apparently because the waters would be mixed; but then, even if he explains, ‘below the water’, is not the water mixed? — The other replied: Have you not heard the statement which Rab Judah made in the name of Rab or, as others are inclined to assert, in the name of R. Hiyya: The tops of the reeds must be seen projecting one handbreadth above the surface of the water! Furthermore, with reference to Rab Judah's submission that ABOVE means above the water’, why does he not explain, actually above’? Apparently because the water would be mixed; but then, even if it is explained: ‘above the water’ is not the water mixed? — The other replied: Have you not heard what Jacob of Karhina has learnt: One must insert the ends of the reeds into the water to the depth of a handbreadth. With reference, however, to Rab Judah's ruling that a crossbeam of the width of four handbreadths effects permissibility in a ruin, and to that of R. Nahman who, citing Rabbah b. Abbuha, ruled that

—

86:2

a cross-beam of the width of four handbreadths effects permissibility in the case of water, does not the bucket swing to the other side and thus carry up the water from it? — The Rabbis have ascertained that a bucket does not swing beyond four handbreadths. But are not the waters mixed under the cross-beam at least? — The fact is that the Sages have relaxed the law in respect of water; as R. Tabla, when he enquired of Rab whether a suspended partition can convert a ruin into a permitted domain, was told: A suspended partition effects permissibility of use in the case of water alone since in the case of water did the Sages relax the law. R. JUDAH OBSERVED: THE PARTITION COULD NOT BE. Rabbah b. Bar Hana citing R. Johanan explained: R. Judah made his submission on the lines of the view of R. Jose who holds: A suspended partition effects permissibility even on dry land. For we learned: If its walls were suspended from above in a downward direction [the sukkah] is invalid, if they were removed three handbreadths from the ground; but if they are raised in an upward direction the sukkah is valid if they were ten handbreadths high. R. Jose ruled: As walls of the height of ten handbreadths are valid if they rise from the ground upwards so are those that stretch from above downwards valid if their height is ten handbreadths. This, however, is not correct; neither does R. Judah hold the view of R. Jose nor does R. Jose hold that of R. Judah. R. Judah does not hold the view of R. Jose, since the former maintained his view only in respect of ‘erubs of courtyards which are merely a Rabbinical institution but not in that of sukkah which is Pentateuchal. Nor does R. Jose hold the view of R. Judah, since the former maintained his view only in respect of sukkah which is merely a positive commandment but not in that of Sabbath which involves a prohibition punishable by stoning. And should you ask, ‘In agreement with whose view was that incident at Sepphoris decided upon?’ It was not decided upon [it might be explained,] in agreement with the view of R. Jose but with that of R. Ishmael son of R. Jose. When R. Dimi came he related: The people once forgot to bring a scroll of the Torah on the Sabbath eve and on the following day they spread a sheet upon the pillars, brought the scroll of the Torah and read from it. ‘They spread!’ But is this permitted ab initio seeing that all agree that not even a temporary tent may be put tip on the Sabbath? The fact is that they found sheets spread upon the pillars and so they brought the scroll of the Torah and read from it. Rabbah observed: R. Judah and R. Hananya b. Akabya have said practically the same thing. As to R. Judah there is the ruling just mentioned. As to R. Hananya b. Akabya, it was taught: R. Hananya b. Akabya ruled: In a balcony that has an area of four cubits by four cubits42

—