עירובין 100

¹ — Because it is a dwelling-place that serves only the outside air, and no movement of objects is permitted in a dwelling-place whose only function is that of serving the outside air, if its area was greater than two beth se'ah. IF ITS ROOTS ARE HIGH ABOVE THE GROUND etc. It was stated: If the roots of a tree descended from a level that was above three handbreadths into one that was lower than three handbreadths, Rabbah ruled: It is permitted to use them, while R. Shesheth ruled: It is forbidden to use them. ‘Rabbah ruled: It is permitted to use them’, since all levels lower than three handbreadths from the ground are regarded as the ground itself. ‘R. Shesheth ruled: It is forbidden to use them’, because, owing to the fact that they derive from a forbidden source, they themselves are also forbidden. If they are in the shape of a rocky crag. those that grow upwards are forbidden, those that grow downwards are permitted, while as to those that grow sideways a difference of opinion exists between Rabbah and R. Shesheth; and the same applies to a dike and a corner. Abaye had a certain palm-tree that projected through the sky-light and when he came to R. Joseph the latter permitted it to him , R. Aha b. Tahlifa observed: In permitting its use to you he acted in accordance with Rabbah's view. Is not this obvious?- It might have been presumed that even according to the view of R. Shesheth a house is regarded as full and that one may, therefore, use a tree within less than three handbreadths from the roof, hence we were informed [that the decision was given only in accordance with the view of Rabbah]. We learned: IF ITS ROOTS ARE THREE HANDBREADTHS HIGH ABOVE THE GROUND ONE MAY NOT SIT ON THEM. Now how are we to imagine the circumstances? If they did not subsequently bend downwards,is not this obvious? This must consequently be a case, must it not, where they subsequently bent downwards? — No, the fact is that they did not subsequently bend downwards, but it is this that we were informed: Even though [on] one of its sides [they were] level with the ground. Our Rabbis taught: If the roots of a tree were three handbreadths high above the ground, or if there was a hollow space of three handbreadths beneath them, one must not sit on them even though on one side of the tree they were level with the ground, because it is not permissible either to climb upon a tree or to suspend oneself from a tree or to recline on a tree; nor may one climb upon a tree while it is yet day to remain there all the Sabbath day, the law being the same in the case of a tree and in that of any cattle. In the case of a cistern, a ditch, a cave or a wall one may climb up or climb down even if they were a hundred cubits [deep or high]. One Baraitha teaches: If a man climbed, up he may climb down. But does not another Baraitha teach that he is forbidden to climb down? — This is no difficulty since the former refers to one who climbed up while it was yet day while the latter refers to one who did it after dusk. If you prefer I might reply: Both refer to all ascent after dusk and yet there is no difficulty, since the one refers to an unwitting act while the other refers to an intentional one. If you prefer I might say: Both refer to an unwitting act, but the principle underlying their divergence of view is the question whether a penalty has been imposed in respect of an unwitting act as a precaution against the performance of an intentional act. One Master is of the opinion that such a penalty has been imposed while the other Master holds that no such penalty has been imposed. R. Huna son of R. Joshua observed: This is similar in principle to the dispute between the following Tannas: If the blood of sacrifices of which one sprinkling only is necessary was confused with the blood of other sacrifices of which one sprinkling is necessary, each is to be sprinkled once. If blood of which four sprinklings are necessary was confused with other blood of which four sprinklings were necessary each is to be sprinkled four times. If that which has to be sprinkled four times was confused with that which has to be sprinkled once, R. Eliezer ruled: Each must be sprinkled four times, and R. Joshua ruled: Each must be sprinkled only once. ‘Does he not’, said R. Eliezer to him, ‘thereby transgress the law against diminishing from the precepts?’ ‘Does he not thereby’, replied R. Joshua. ‘transgress the prohibition against adding to the precepts?’ ‘This’, R. Eliezer retorted: ‘applies only where it is in all isolated condition’.is ‘The prohibition against diminishing from the precepts also’ , said R. Joshua to him, ‘applies only when it is in all isolated condition’. R. Joshua, furthermore, explained: If you sprinkle you transgress the prohibition against adding to the precepts and you also perform the act with your own hand, but if you do not sprinkle you transgress indeed the prohibition against diminishing from the precepts but you do not perform any act with your own hand’. Now, according to R. Eliezer who laid down there that the performance of an uncertain precept is preferable. the man may here also climb down, while according to R. Joshua who held there that the abstention from the performance of an uncertain precept is preferable. the man here also may not climb down. This argument, however, might be fallacious, since R. Eliezer may have maintained his view, that the performance of an uncertain precept is preferable. only there where a positive precept is thereby performed. but here, where no positive precept is performed he may also agree that the man must not climb down. Or else: R. Joshua may have maintained his view, that the abstention from the performance of an uncertain precept is preferable. only there57^{ᵃᵇᶜᵈᵉᶠᵍʰⁱʲᵏˡᵐⁿᵒᵖᵠʳˢᵗᵘᵛʷˣʸᶻᵃᵃᵃᵇᵃᶜᵃᵈᵃᵉᵃᶠᵃᵍᵃʰᵃⁱᵃʲᵃᵏᵃˡᵃᵐᵃⁿᵃᵒᵃᵖᵃᵠᵃʳᵃˢᵃᵗᵃᵘᵃᵛᵃʷᵃˣᵃʸᵃᶻᵇᵃᵇᵇᵇᶜᵇᵈᵇᵉᵇᶠᵇᵍᵇʰᵇⁱᵇʲᵇᵏᵇˡᵇᵐ}

² where no direct transgression is committed, but here where a direct transgression is committed he may also agree that the man may climb down! One [Baraitha] taught, ‘The same prohibition applies to a green tree and to a dry tree’; and another [Baraitha] taught: ‘This prohibition applies only to a green tree whereas in the case of a dry one no prohibition exists’! — Rab Judah replied: This is no difficulty, since the former refers to a tree whose stump grows afresh whereas the latter refers to one whose stump does not grow afresh. But if its stump ‘grows afresh’, would you describe it as ‘dry’? — Rather say: There is no difficulty since the latter refers to the hot season whereas the former refers to the rainy season. [You say] in the not season? Surely the fruit falls of? — This is a case where it bore no fruit. But do not some chips fall off? — This is a case where the tree was stripped. But, surely, this cannot be right? For did not Rab once visit Afsatia where he forbade the use of a stripped tree? — Rab found an open field and put up a fence round it. Rami b. Hama, citing R. Assi, ruled: A man is forbidden to walk on grass on the Sabbath, because it is said in Scripture: And he that hasteth with his feet sinneth. One [Baraitha] taught: It is permitted to walk on grass on the Sabbath; and another [Baraitha] taught that this was forbidden! — This is no difficulty. Since the latter refers to fresh grass whereas the former refers to dry grass. And if you prefer I might say: Both [Baraithas] refer to fresh grass, and yet there is no difficulty since the latter refers to the hot season whereas the former refers to the rainy season. And if you prefer I might reply: Both deal with the hot season, and yet there is no difficulty, since the former deals with a person who wears his shoes whereas the latter deals with one who is barefooted. And if you prefer I might reply: Both deal with a person who wears his shoes, but there is no difficulty since the latter refers to shoes that have nails whereas the former refers to such as have no nails. And if you prefer I might reply: Both deal with shoes that have nails, but the latter refers to long and tangled grass whereas the former refers to one that is not tangled. Nowadays, however, since we have it as an established rule that the law is in agreement with R. Simeon, it is permitted to walk on grass] in all the cases mentioned. Rami b. Hama citing R. Assi further ruled: A man is forbidden to compel his wife to the [marital] obligation, since it is said in Scripture: And he that hasteth with his feet sinneth. R. Joshua b. Levi similarly stated: Whosoever compels his wife to the [marital] obligation will have unworthy children. Said R. Ika b. Hinena: What is the Scriptural proof? ‘Also without consent the soul is hot good.’ So it was also taught: Also without consent the soul is not good, refers to a man who compels his wife to the [marital] obligation: And he that hasteth with his feet sinneth, refers to the man who has intercourse twice in succession. But, surely, this cannot be right! For did not Raba state, ‘He who desires all his children to be males should cohabit twice in succession’? — This is no difficulty, since the latter deals with the woman's] consent; whereas the former, without her consent. R. Samuel b. Nahmani citing R. Johanan stated: A woman who solicits her husband to the [marital] obligation will have children the like of whom did not exist even in the generation of Moses. For of the generation of Moses it is written: Get you from each one of your tribes, wise men and understanding, and full of knowledge, and then it follows: So I took the heads of your tribes, wise men and full of knowledge. while men of ‘understanding’ he could not find, whereas in the case of Leah it is written in Scripture, ‘And Leah went out to meet him, and said: Thou must come unto me, for I have surely hired thee,’ and subsequently it is written, ‘And of the children of Issachar, men that had understanding of the times, to know what Israel ought to do, the heads of them were two hundred, and all their brethren were at their commandment.’ But can that be right? seeing that R. Isaac b. Abdimi stated: Eve was cursed with ten curses, since it is written: Unto the woman He said, and I will greatly multiply, which refers to the two drops of blood, one being that of menstruation and the other that of virginity, ‘thy pain’ refers to the pain of bringing up children, ‘and thy travail’ refers to the pain of conceptions ‘in pain thou shalt bring forth children’ is to be understood in its literal meaning, ‘and thy desire shall be to thy husband’ teaches that a woman yearns for her husband when he is about to set out on a journey, ‘and he shall rule over thee’ teaches that while the wife solicits with her heart the husband does so with his mouth, this being a fine trait of character among women? — What was meant is that she ingratiates herself with him. But are not these only seven? When R. Dimi came he explained: She is wrapped up like a mourner, banished from the company of all men and confined within a prison. What is meant by ‘banished from the company of all men’? If it be suggested: That she is forbidden to meet a man in privacy, is not the man also but could be retorted.] forbidden to meet a woman in privacy? — The meaning rather is that she is forbidden to marry two men. In a Baraitha it was taught: She grows long hair like Lilith, sits when making water like a beast, and serves as a bolster for her husband. And the other? — These, he holds, are rather complimentary to her, R. Hiyya having made the following statement: What is meant by the Scriptural text: Who teacheth us by the beasts of the earth and maketh us wise by the fowls of the heaven? ‘Who teacheth us by the beasts’ refers to the mule which kneels when it makes water, ‘and maketh us wise by the fowls of the heaven’ refers to the cock which first coaxes and then mates. R. Johanan observed: If the Torah had not been given we could have learnt modesty from the cat, honesty from the ant, chastity from the dove, and good manners from the cock who first coaxes and then mates. And how does he coax his mate? — Rab Judah citing Rab replied. He tells her this: ‘I will buy you a cloak that win reach to your feet’. After the event he tells her, ‘May the cat tear off my crest if I have any money and do not buy you one’.^{ᵇⁿᵇᵒᵇᵖᵇᵠᵇʳᵇˢᵇᵗᵇᵘᵇᵛᵇʷᵇˣᵇʸᵇᶻᶜᵃᶜᵇᶜᶜᶜᵈᶜᵉᶜᶠᶜᵍᶜʰᶜⁱᶜʲᶜᵏᶜˡᶜᵐᶜⁿᶜᵒᶜᵖᶜᵠᶜʳᶜˢᶜᵗᶜᵘᶜᵛᶜʷᶜˣᶜʸᶜᶻᵈᵃᵈᵇᵈᶜᵈᵈᵈᵉᵈᶠᵈᵍᵈʰᵈⁱᵈʲᵈᵏᵈˡᵈᵐᵈⁿᵈᵒᵈᵖᵈᵠᵈʳ}