עירובין 17:2 — Soncino English Talmud

he has friends who would bury [him he is to be buried where he was killed]. For it was taught: Who is deemed a meth mizwah? Any person who has no one to bury him. Were he, however, to call [for help] and others answer him, he is not [to be regarded as] a meth mizwah. But does a meth mizwah acquire [the right to be buried on] the spot where it is found? Was it not in fact taught: If a man found a corpse lying in the road, he may remove it to the right of the road or to the left of the road: [if on the one side there was] an uncultivated, and [on the other] a fallow field, he should remove it to the uncultivated field; a fallow field and a field with seeds, he should remove it to the fallow field; if both fields were fallow, sown, or uncultivated he may remove it to whichever side he wishes? — R. Bibi replied: Here we are dealing with a corpse that lay across a narrow path, and since permission was granted to remove it from the path one may also move it to whichever side one pleases. THEY ARE EXEMPT FROM THE WASHING OF THE HANDS. Abaye stated: This was taught only in respect of the washing before a meal, but the washing after a meal is obligatory. R. Hiyya b. Ashi stated: Why did the Rabbis rule that washing after a meal is obligatory? Because there exists a certain Sodomitic salt that causes blindness. And, said Abaye, it is found in the proportion of one grain to a kor [in any kind of salt]. Said R. Aha son of Raba to R. Ashi: What [is your ruling where] one has measured out any salt? This, the other replied, is perfectly obvious. FROM [THE RESTRICTIONS OF] DEMAI, for we learned: Poor men and billeted troops may be fed with demai. R. Huna stated: One taught: Beth Shammai ruled: Poor men and billeted troops may not be fed with demai, and Beth Hillel ruled: Poor men and billeted troops may be fed with demai. AND FROM THE DUTY OF PREPARING AN ‘ERUB. It was stated at the schoolhouse of R. Jannai: [This ruling] was taught only in regard to an ‘erub of courtyards but their obligation to an ‘erub of boundaries remains unaffected, since R. Hiyya taught: For [transgressing the laws of] ‘erub of boundaries flogging is incurred [in accordance with] Pentateuchal Law. R. Jonathan demurred: Is flogging incurred on account of a prohibition implied in Al? R. Aha b. Jacob demurred: Now then, since it is written in Scripture: Turn ye not unto them that have familiar spirits, nor unto the wizards, should no flogging be incurred in that case also? — It was this difficulty that R. Jonathan felt: [Is not this] a prohibition that was given to [authorize] a warning of death at the hands of Beth din and for any prohibition given to [authorize] a warning of death no flogging is incurred? — R. Ashi replied: Is it written in Scripture, ‘Let no man carry out ? It is [in fact] written: Let no man go out. CHAPTER II MISHNAH. WELLS MAY BE PROVIDED WITH STRIPS OF WOOD [BY FIXING] FOUR CORNER-PIECES THAT HAVE THE APPEARANCE OF EIGHT [SINGLE STRIPS]; SO R. JUDAH. R. MEIR RULED: EIGHT [STRIPS THAT] HAVE THE APPEARANCE OF TWELVE [MUST BE SET UP], FOUR BEING CORNER-PIECES AND FOUR SINGLE [STRIPS]. THEIR HEIGHT [MUST BE] TEN HANDBREADTHS, THEIR WIDTH SIX, AND THEIR THICKNESS [MAY BE] OF ANY SIZE WHATSOEVER. BETWEEN THEM [THERE MAY BE] AS MUCH [SPACE AS TO ADMIT] TWO TEAMS OF THREE OXEN EACH; SO R. MEIR; BUT R. JUDAH SAID: OF FOUR [OXEN EACH, THESE TEAMS BEING] TIED TOGETHER AND NOT APART [BUT THERE MAY BE SPACE ENOUGH FOR] ONE TO ENTER WHILE THE OTHER GOES OUT. IT IS PERMITTED TO BRING [THE STRIPS] CLOSE TO THE WELL, PROVIDED A COW CAN BE WITHIN [THE ENCLOSURE WITH] ITS HEAD AND THE GREATER PART OF ITS BODY WHEN DRINKING. IT IS PERMITTED^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

^ᵃnote:The warrior.
^ᵇnote:Rashi: Heirs.
^ᶜnote:Yeb. 89b, Naz. 43b.
^ᵈnote:In order to avoid or reduce any possible damage to the crops.
^ᵉnote:B.K. 81b. Now if a meth mizwah must be buried on the spot in which it is found, why was his removal allowed in this Baraitha?
^ᶠnote:Blocking it entirely so that it is impossible to pass through without stepping over the corpse.
^ᵍnote:So as to enable priests and others who observe levitical purity to use the path without contracting defilement.
^ʰnote:Lit., ‘first water’.
^ⁱnote:Lit., ‘last water.
^ʲnote:MS.M., ‘for R. Judah son of R. Hiyya’. Cf. also Tosaf. Hul. 105a, s.v. ohn.
^ᵏnote:And the washing after the meal removes it from the fingers that may have touched it (cf. Ber. 40a).
^ˡnote:V. Glos.
^ᵐnote:Sc. handled it for some purpose other than that of eating it. Is the washing of the hands obligatory in such a case also?
^ⁿnote:That washing is required.
^ᵒnote:Lit., ‘it is not (to be) asked’. At the present time it is no longer customary to wash the hands after a meal because Sodomitic salt is uncommon or because no one now dips his fingers in salt after a meal (Tosaf. s.v. ohn a.l.).
^ᵖnote:Even if they are Jews.
^ᵠnote:Dem. III, 1; Ber. 47a; Shab. 127b; infra 31a. The laws of demai, being only Rabbinical, have been relaxed in these cases.
^ʳnote:V. Glos,
^ˢnote:Cf. infra 51a.
^ᵗnote:utk lit., ‘not’.
^ᵘnote:kt. This negative, it is now assumed, does not express emphatic prohibition as the negative particle .
^ᵛnote:Against R. Jonathan's demur.
^ʷnote:If no flogging is to be incurred for a prohibition expressed by al.
^ˣnote:kt.
^ʸnote:Lev. XIX, 31.
^ᶻnote:But the fact is that flogging is in that case incurred.
^ᵃᵃnote:The injunction, ‘Let no man go out’ (Ex. XVI, 29) from which the prohibitions of both (a) walking beyond the Sabbath limits and (b) carrying from one Sabbath domain into another are inferred (v. Tosaf. s.v. utk a.l.).
^ᵃᵇnote:For the carrying of objects from one Sabbath domain into another the penalty is not flogging but death (cf. Shab. 96b).
^ᵃᶜnote:Even where the penalty of death is not inflicted as, for instance, where the witnesses gave their warning in respect of flogging. How then could it be ruled by R. Hiyya that ‘for transgressing the laws of ‘erub of boundaries’, which are derived from the same text (cf. supra p. 118 n. 15), ‘flogging is incurred’?
^ᵃᵈnote:Which would explicitly have referred to the carrying of objects. Had this been the case, and as walking beyond the Sabbath limits is inferred from the same text, as no flogging is incurred for the carrying of objects so could none be incurred for walking beyond the Sabbath limits.
^ᵃᵉnote:Ex. XVI, 29. Since the expression used is actually that of going out, flogging is rightly incurred for acting against this prohibition (cf. Tosaf. loc. cit. Rashi has a different interpretation).
^ᵃᶠnote:That are situated in a public domain and are no less than ten handbreadths deep and four handbreadths wide and, in consequence, subject to the status of a private domain.
^ᵃᵍnote:In order that water may be drawn from them on the Sabbath.
^ᵃʰnote:No proper enclosure being necessary (v. infra).
^ᵃⁱnote:Or deyomads (cf. note supra 15a), each consisting of two upright boards of the prescribed measurements (v. infra) with their ends joined at right angles to each other.
^ᵃʲnote:So that each of the four sides of the well is screened at each of its two ends by a strip of wood of the prescribed size, and the space around it within the enclosure is thus converted into a private domain into which water from the well may be drawn (cf. supra n. 2).
^ᵃᵏnote:One between each two corner-pieces (cf. previous note).
^ᵃˡnote:Lit., ‘like the fullness of’.
^ᵃᵐnote:This is a restriction: The space must not be wider than that.
^ᵃⁿnote:Team (v. infra 19a ad fin.)
^ᵃᵒnote:A relaxation of the law: They need not be brought so closely together as to leave no room for them to move freely.
^ᵃᵖnote:If the space is smaller, the drawing of water is forbidden on the Sabbath, since the cow might back out of the enclosure and one might carry the bucket after her and thus be guilty of carrying from a private, into a public domain.