עירובין 98

98:1

who then, [it may be asked,] is the author? Obviously R. Simeon who ruled: NO PROHIBITION THAT IS DUE TO SHEBUTH RETAINS ITS FORCE IN THE PRESENCE OF THE HOLY WRITINGS; but then read the final clause: R. JUDAH RULER, EVEN IF IT WAS REMOVED FROM THE GROUND BY NO MORE THAN A THREAD'S THICKNESS HE MAY ROLL IT RACK TO HIMSELF. R. SIMEON RULED: EVEN IF IT TOUCHED THE ACTUAL. GROUND, HE MAY ROLL IT BACK TO HIMSELF. Is it likely that the first and final clauses represent the view of R. Simeon while the middle one represents that of R. Judah?-Rab Rabbah replied: Yes the first and final clauses may represent the view of R. Simeon while the middle one represents that of R. Judah: Rabbah replied: We deal here with a threshold that was trodden upon [by the public] and in order [to avert] disrespect to the holy writings the Rabbis have permitted [to roll it back]. Abaye raised an objection against him: [If it rested] within four cubits one may roll it back to oneself, [but if it rested] without the four cubits one must turn it over with its writing downwards. Now if you maintain that we are dealing with a threshold that was trodden upon by the public what matters it whether the end of the roll rested within the four cubits or without the four cubits? Rather, explained Abaye, we are dealing here with a threshold that was a karmelith in front of which passed a public domain. [Hence it is that if the end of the scroll rested] within four cubits where, even if [all the scroll] had fallen down and one would have carried it back, no obligation of a sin-offering would be incurred, the Rabbis have permitted the man to roll it back; but where it rested without the four cubits in which case, if he had brought it back, he would have incurred the obligation of a sin-offering, the Rabbis did not permit it to him. But if so, why should not a preventive measure be enacted, even [where the end of the scroll rested] within the four cubits, lest one night come to carry [the scroll] from the public into a private domain? And should you reply: Since a karmelith intervened this need not be provided against, did not Raba, [it may be objected,] state: if a man transferred an object from the beginning of four cubits to the end of the four cubits, and the transfer was made above his head, he is guilty of an offence? — Here we are dealing with all extensive threshold in crossing which one is sure to recollect [to pause]. If you prefer I might reply: The fact is that we are dealing here with a threshold that was not extensive, but one usually looks through the holy writings before putting them away. But why should not the possibility be taken into consideration that one might look through them while in the public domain and then carry them directly into the private domain? — The author of this ruling is Ben ‘Azzai who laid down that walking is like standing. But is it not possible that he might throw them, R. Johanan having stated: ‘Ben ‘Azzai agrees in the case of throwing’? R. Aha b. Ahabah replied: This proves that holy writings may not be thrown. IF HE WAS HEADING IT ON THE TOP OF A ROOF etc. But is this permitted. seeing that it was taught: The writers of the scrolls of Scripture, tefillin or mezuzoth were not permitted to turn a skin with the writing downwards, but a cloth must be spread over it? There this is possible whereas here this is impossible; and if one were not to turn it over the holy writings would be exposed to much greater abuse. HE MUST TURN IT OVER WITH ITS WRITING DOWNWARDS. But, surely, it has not, has it, come to a rest? — Raba replied: This is a case where the wall was slanting. Said Abaye to him: You have explained our Mishnah as referring to a slanting wall; read them the final clause: R. JUDAH RULED, EVEN IF IT WAS REMOVED FROM THE GROUND BY NO MORE THAN A THREAD'S THICKNESS, HE MAY ROLL IT BACK TO HIMSElf, but, surely, I may ask, has it not come to rest? — Some words are wanting, the proper reading being as follows: This applies only to a slanting wall, but in the case

—

98:2

of a wall that was not slanting and it came to rest above three handbreadths [from the ground], he may roll it back to himself; but if below the three handbreadths, HE MUST TURN IT OVER WITH ITS WRITING DOWNWARDS. R. JUDAH RULED: EVEN IF IT WAS REMOVED, FROM THE GROUND BY NO MORE THAN etc., because it is essential that the object shall come to rest on something. But then what of the statement of Raba that even if all object came within three handbreadths [from the ground] it is necessary according to the Rabbis that it shall rest on something, must it be assumed that he based his teaching on what is a dispute between Tannas? — The fact is that all this represents the view of R. Judah, but some words are missing, the correct reading being as follows: This applies only to a slanting wall, but in the case of a wall that was not slanting, even if it was below three handbreadths from the ground, he may roll it back because R. JUDAH RULED: EVEN IF IT WAS REMOVED FROM THE GROUND BY NO MORE THAN A THREADS THICKNESS, HE MAY ROLL. IT BACK TO HIMSELF. What is the reason? Because it is essential that the object shall come to rest on something. MISHNAH. IF THERE WAS A LEDGE IN FRONT OF A WINDOW IT IS PERMltted TO PUT OBJECTS UPON IT OR TO REMOVE OBJECTS FROM IT ON THE SABBATH. GEMARA. Whither did the LEDGE project? If it be suggested that it projected on to a public domain, why should no provision be made against the possibility that an object might drop and one would be tempted to carry it? If, on the other hand, it be projected on to a private domain, is not this obvious? — Abaye replied: The fact is that it projected on to a public domain, but the ruling, that IT IS PERMITTED TO PUT OBJECTS UPON IT, refers only to breakable objects. So it was also taught: If a ledge in front of a window projected into a public domain it is permitted to put upon it dishes, cups, ladles or bottles; and [it is permitted] to use all the wall as far as its lowest ten handbreadths. If there was a ledge below it one may use it, while the upper one may be used only in front of one's window. Now what kind of ledge is one to imagine? If its width was less than four handbreadths, is it not a free domain which one must not use even in front of one's window? If, on the other hand, its with was four handbreadths, why should not one be allowed to use it along the entire length of the wall? — Abaye replied: This is a case where the lower ledge was four handbreadths wide, while the upper one was not four handbreadths wide but the window-sill made it up to four handbreadths. [Consequently] One may use it in front of the window since it is regarded as an extension of the window-sill but its section on the one side or on the other remains forbidden. MISHNAH. A MAN MAY STAND IN A PRIVATE DOMAIN AND MOVE OBJECTS IN A PUBLIC DOMAIN OR HE MAY STAND IN A PUBLIC DOMAIN AND MOVE OBJECTS IN A PRIVATE DOMAIN, PROVIDED HE DOES NOT TAKE THEM BEYOND FOUR CUBITS. A MAN MAY NOT STAND IN A PRIVATE DOMAIN AND MAKE WATER IN A PUBLIC DOMAIN OR IN A PUBLIC DOMAIN AND MAKE WATER IN A PRIVATE DOMAIN, AND THE SAME APPLIES TO SPITTING. R. JUDAH RULED: EVEN WHERE A PERSON'S SPITTLE ACCUMULATED IN HIS MOUTH, HE MUST NOT WALK FOUR CUBITS BEFORE HE SPAT OUT. GEMARA. R. Hinena b. Shelemya taught Hiyya b. Rab in the presence of Rab: A man may not stand in a private domain and move objects in a public domain. ‘Do you’, he said to him, ‘ignore the Rabbis and act according to the view of R. Meir?’44

—