עירובין 100:1 — Soncino English Talmud

— 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^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ^ᵃᵛ^ᵃʷ^ᵃˣ^ᵃʸ^ᵃᶻ^ᵇᵃ^ᵇᵇ^ᵇᶜ^ᵇᵈ^ᵇᵉ^ᵇᶠ^ᵇᵍ^ᵇʰ^ᵇⁱ^ᵇʲ^ᵇᵏ^ᵇˡ^ᵇᵐ

^ᵃnote:The watchmen use it only during the season when they are engaged in their duties in the fields and vineyards in the open air. No one uses the area tinder a tree as an ordinary habitation.
^ᵇnote:Sc. they began to bend downwards after they had grown to a high above three handbreadths from the ground.
^ᶜnote:As one may use the ground so may one use the roots within the three handbreadths level.
^ᵈnote:Those parts of the roots that were higher than three handbreadths.
^ᵉnote:The roots.
^ᶠnote:Meshunitha is derived by Rashi from the came root as shen in shen sela’, sc. the roots grew upwards and then bent downwards in the shape of a sloping hill, smaller roots branching out of the bigger ones.
^ᵍnote:From a section of a root that was higher than three handbreadths from the ground.
^ʰnote:Even according to the view of Rabbah, since hot11 roots and source are in a forbidden level.
^ⁱnote:From a root section below the level of three handbreadths.
^ʲnote:Even by R. Shesheth, since roots as well as source are below three handbreadths from the ground.
^ᵏnote:Sc. they branch out from a root section that was above the three handbreadths level and bend downwards within that level.
^ˡnote:According to the former, their use is permitted since they are bent downwards and reached the low level which is regarded as the ground itself; while according to the latter they are forbidden on account of their source which is within the forbidden level.
^ᵐnote:Divergence of view.
^ⁿnote:Or ‘ditch’, in which grew a tree, two of whose sides were embedded in the sides of the dike. According to Rabbah the use of the roots that were within three handbreadths from the top of the dike is permitted while according to R. Shesheth, since they grew from a level which is above three handbreadths from the bottom of the dike, they are forbidden.
^ᵒnote:Formed by two walls that enclosed the three sides of a tree whose height reached to within three handbreadths above the walls. According to Rabbah the portion of the tree above the walls may be used since its lower section on those sides is covered by the walls and the part projecting above them is within three handbreadths from their tops. According to R. Shesheth, however, since their source in the exposed side of the tree is above three handbreadths from the ground, this is forbidden. In the case of a tree one of whose sides only adjoins a wall while its other sides remained exposed even Rabbah, it may be added, agrees that its use is forbidden.
^ᵖnote:Within a house.
^ᵠnote:But not above three handbreadths from the roof.
^ʳnote:To enquire whether its use was permissible on the Sabbath.
^ˢnote:Because none of the sides of the tree protected above three handbreadths from the roof of the house.
^ᵗnote:R. Joseph.
^ᵘnote:That the source is disregarded. According to R. Shesheth, since the use of the lower section of the tree within the house, which is obviously higher than three handbreadths from the floor, is forbidden, the use of the section above the roof which grows from It is equally forbidden.
^ᵛnote:As in the case of a window (supra 76b).
^ʷnote:Sc. as if it were full of earth up to the ceiling.
^ˣnote:After rising to the height of three handbreadths.
^ʸnote:THAT ONE MAY NOT SIT ON THEM.
^ᶻnote:Of course it is. Why then was it stated?
^ᵃᵃnote:And yet it is forbidden to sit on them. All objection against Rabbah.
^ᵃᵇnote:As to your objection. ‘ Is not this obvious?’
^ᵃᶜnote:The tree's.
^ᵃᵈnote:Rabbah maintains his view only where more than one side was on a level with, or within three handbreadths front the ground.
^ᵃᵉnote:On the Sabbath.
^ᵃᶠnote:Of the Sabbath eve.
^ᵃᵍnote:The prohibition to climb up or down a tree on the Sabbath is not title to the trouble or effort involved in the process but to a preventive measure against the possibility of intentional plucking of a growing plant, which is one of the acts of work forbidden on the Sabbath.
^ᵃʰnote:Upon a tree.
^ᵃⁱnote:Lit., ‘here’.
^ᵃʲnote:In the former case, since his ascent involved no transgression, no penalty was imposed upon him.
^ᵃᵏnote:Cf. prev. n. mut. mut.
^ᵃˡnote:The author of the latter Baraitha.
^ᵃᵐnote:The divergence of opinion between the authors of the Baraithas just discussed.
^ᵃⁿnote:On the altar. Lit., ‘those that are given by one giving’.
^ᵃᵒnote:If a bowl of blood of a firstling, for instance, was confused with that of the tithe of cattle. (The interpretation here follows Bertinoro in Zeb. VIII, 10).
^ᵃᵖnote:Cf. Bertinoro l.c.
^ᵃᵠnote:As, for instance, the blood of a burnt-offering with that of a peace-offering (cf. prev. n.).
^ᵃʳnote:The superfluous sprinklings in the case of the latter being regarded as those of mere water that can in no way affect the prescribed number.
^ᵃˢnote:Any additional sprinklings would, in the case of the latter, constitute an infringement of the Pentateuchal prohibition against adding to the precepts (cf. Deut. XIII, 1).
^ᵃᵗnote:By sprinkling, in the case of the former, less than the prescribed number of times. Lit., ‘behold he’.
^ᵃᵘnote:Cf. Deut. XIII, 1.
^ᵃᵛnote:By his sprinkling, in the case of the latter, more times than required.
^ᵃʷnote:Cf. Supra n. 8.
^ᵃˣnote:The prohibition to add to the precepts.
^ᵃʸnote:Lit., ‘the only said’.
^ᵃᶻnote:Lit., ‘in itself’, but not where it is confused with another kind.
^ᵇᵃnote:More than the prescribed number of times.
^ᵇᵇnote:Zeb. 80a.
^ᵇᶜnote:Lit., ‘arise and do’.
^ᵇᵈnote:To its neglect.
^ᵇᵉnote:Where he was on the Sabbath on a tree.
^ᵇᶠnote:By doing this he escapes the prohibition against his continued use of the tree.
^ᵇᵍnote:Lit., ‘sit and do not act’.
^ᵇʰnote:To its performance.
^ᵇⁱnote:Since by remaining on the tree he performs no new act.
^ᵇʲnote:Lit., ‘perhaps it is not (so)’.
^ᵇᵏnote:By the sprinkling.
^ᵇˡnote:By climbing down.
^ᵇᵐnote:One only avoids thereby the continued infringement of a negative precept against the use of a tree on the Sabbath.