Eruvin

he1 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 one2 to bury him. Were he, however, to call [for help] and others answer him, he is not [to be regarded as] a meth mizwah.3 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;4 a fallow field and a field with seeds, he should remove it to the fallow field;4 if both fields were fallow, sown, or uncultivated he may remove it to whichever side he wishes?5 — R. Bibi replied: Here we are dealing with a corpse that lay across a narrow path,6 and since permission was granted to remove it from the path7 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,8 but the washing after a meal9 is obligatory. R.10 Hiyya b. Ashi stated: Why did the Rabbis rule that washing after a meal9 is obligatory? Because there exists a certain Sodomitic salt that causes blindness.11 And, said Abaye, it is found in the proportion of one grain to a kor12 [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?13 This,14 the other replied, is perfectly obvious.15 FROM [THE RESTRICTIONS OF] DEMAI, for we learned: Poor men and billeted troops16 may be fed with demai.17 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 ‘erub18 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.19 R. Jonathan demurred: Is flogging incurred on account of a prohibition20 implied in Al?21 R. Aha b. Jacob demurred:22 Now then,23 since it is written in Scripture: Turn ye not24 unto them that have familiar spirits, nor unto the wizards,25 should no flogging be incurred in that case also?26 — It was this difficulty that R. Jonathan felt: [Is not this]27 a prohibition that was given to [authorize] a warning of death at the hands of Beth din28 and for any prohibition given to [authorize] a warning of death no flogging is incurred?29 — R. Ashi replied: Is it written in Scripture, ‘Let no man carry out ?30 It is [in fact] written: Let no man go out.31 CHAPTER II MISHNAH. WELLS32 MAY BE PROVIDED33 WITH STRIPS OF WOOD34 [BY FIXING] FOUR CORNER-PIECES35 THAT HAVE THE APPEARANCE OF EIGHT [SINGLE STRIPS];36 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].37 THEIR HEIGHT [MUST BE] TEN HANDBREADTHS, THEIR WIDTH SIX, AND THEIR THICKNESS [MAY BE] OF ANY SIZE WHATSOEVER. BETWEEN THEM [THERE MAY BE] AS MUCH38 [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 APART39 [BUT THERE MAY BE SPACE ENOUGH FOR] ONE40 TO ENTER WHILE THE OTHER GOES OUT.41 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.42 IT IS PERMITTED this Baraitha? also? Sodomitic salt is uncommon or because no one now dips his fingers in salt after a meal (Tosaf. s.v. ohn a.l.). cases. Sabbath limits and (b) carrying from one Sabbath domain into another are inferred (v. Tosaf. s.v. utk a.l.). 96b). 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’? 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. this prohibition (cf. Tosaf. loc. cit. Rashi has a different interpretation). consequence, subject to the status of a private domain. with their ends joined at right angles to each other. 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). enclosure and one might carry the bucket after her and thus be guilty of carrying from a private, into a public domain.