Eruvin

and the same [ruling applies to one drinking from, or] in a wine-press.1 Now in the case of a human being it has been laid down that it is necessary for his head and the greater part of his body [to be in the domain from which he drinks], is it necessary in the case of a cow also2 that its lead and the greater part of its body [shall be in the domain from which it drinks] or not? Wherever [the keeper] holds the vessel3 and does not hold the animal there can be no question that it is necessary for its head and the greater part of its body to be within [the private domain].4 The question only arises where he holds the vessel and also the animal. Now what is the ruling? — The other replied: You have learnt it: PROVIDED A COW CAN BE WITHIN [THE ENCLOSURE WITH] ITS HEAD AND THE GREATER PART OF ITS BODY WHEN DRINKING. [This refers,] does it not, to a case where [the keeper] holds both the cow and the vessel? — No, [it may refer to one] who holds the vessel but not the cow. But is it at all permitted5 [to give drink to a cow on the Sabbath] where one holds the vessel and not the animal? Was it not in fact taught: A man must not6 fill [a vessel with] water and hold it7 before his beast8 on the Sabbath but he fills [his bucket] and pours it out [into a trough] and the cow drinks of its own accord?9 — Surely, in connection with this ruling10 it was stated: Abaye explained: Here [we are dealing] with a manger that stands in a public domain, that is ten handbreadths high and four handbreadths wide11 and one of whose sides projects into [the area] between the strips of wood,12 a preventive measure13 having been enacted against the possibility that the man might observe that the manger was damaged14 and, proceeding to repair it, would carry the bucket with him15 and thus carry an object from a private into a public domain.16 But does one incur guilt17 in such circumstances?18 Has not R. Safra in the name of R. Ammi who had it from R. Johanan in fact said: If a man was removing his things19 from one corner into another20 and then changed his mind and carried them out [into a public domain] he is exempt, since the lifting up [of the objects] was not originally intended for this purpose?21 — Rather [this is the explanation:]22 Sometimes he might, after he repaired the manger, carry [the bucket] back again23 and thus he would carry from the public into a private domain.24 Some there are who say:25 In the case of a human being it had definitely been laid down that it was enough if his head and the greater part of his body [were in the domain from which he drinks]. Is it enough, however, in the case of a cow, that its head and the greater part of its body [should be in the domain from which it drinks] or not? Wherever [the keeper] holds the vessel and also the cow, there can be no question that it is enough for its head and the greater part of its body to be [within the private domain].26 The question only arises where he holds the vessel but not the cow.27 Now what is the ruling? — The other replied: You have learnt it: PROVIDED A COW CAN BE WITHIN [THE ENCLOSURE WITH] ITS HEAD AND THE GREATER PART OF ITS BODY WHEN DRINKING. [This refers,] does it not, to a case where [the keeper] holds the vessel but not the cow? — No, [it may refer to one] who holds both the vessel and the cow. And this may also be justified logically; for if he held the vessel only and not the cow, would [the supply of the water have been] permitted seeing that it was in fact taught: A man must not fill [a vessel with] water to hold it before his beast [on the Sabbath],28 but he fills [his bucket] and pours it out [into a trough] and the cow drinks of its own accord? Surely, in connection with this ruling it was stated: Abaye explained: Here [we are dealing] with a manger that stands in a public domain, that is ten handbreadths high and four handbreadths wide, and one of whose sides projects into [an area] between the strips of wood [where it is possible] that the man might sometimes observe that the manger was damaged and, proceeding to repair it, would carry the bucket with him and thus carry an object from a private into a public domain. Does one, however, incur guilt in such circumstances? Has not R. Safra in the name of R. Ammi who had it from R. Johanan in fact said: If a man was removing his things from one corner into another and then changed his mind and carried them out [into a public domain] he is exempt, since the lifting up [of the objects] was not originally intended for this purpose? — Rather, [this is the explanation:] Sometimes he might, after he had repaired the manger, carry [the bucket] back again, and would thus carry from the public into a private domain. Come and hear: A camel whose head and the greater part of its body is within [a private domain] may be crammed within [that domain]. Now is not the act of cramming, the same as holding the bucket and the animal,29 and yet it is required that its head and the greater part of its body [shall be within the private domain].30 R. Aha son of R. Huna replied in the name of R. Shesheth: A camel is different since its neck is long.31 Come and hear: A beast whose head and the greater part of its body is within [a private domain] may be crammed within [that domain]. Is not cramming the same as holding the bucket and the animal,29 and yet it was required that its head and the greater part of its body [shall be within the private domain].30 [It may be objected] that by the expression of ‘beast’, also32 a camel [was meant]. Were not, however, both camel and beast separately mentioned?33 — Were they mentioned in juxtaposition?34 So35 it was also taught: R. Eleazar forbids this36 in the case of a camel, because its neck is long. R. Isaac b. Adda37 stated: Strips [of wood] around wells were permitted to festival pilgrims38 only. But was it not taught: Strips [of wood] around wells were permitted for cattle only? — By39 cattle [was meant] the cattle of the festival pilgrims, but a human being40 domain. enclosure. within the enclosure. It must also refer to a case where the animal was not held by its keeper; for, if the prohibition extended to the case where the animal was held, there could be no point in ever requiring its head and the greater part of its body to be within the enclosure when one is always forbidden to hold the vessel for it. Our Mishnah, on the other hand, which permits the drinking refers to a case where the cow is held by its keeper. ruling in our Mishnah that the cow is allowed to drink if its head and the greater part of its body were within the enclosure might, therefore, apply to a case where the man did not hold the animal. (Cf. Rashi and Tosaf s.v. hfu and thb,vu a.l.). forgetfully carried it out into a public domain. that such work was forbidden on the Sabbath. In the case of the bucket under discussion, therefore, since the keeper when he lifted it up, had no intention of carrying it out into the public domain, no sin-offering would be incurred even if he eventually did carry it out. Why then, should a preventive measure be enacted against a possible act which even if committed would involve no Pentateuchal obligation? intention of carrying it from the public into the private domain. for the head etc. of the cow to be within the enclosure? it and thus cause him to carry the bucket from the private into the public domain. In the case of any other animal, however, whose neck is not so long this need not be provided against and a keeper might well be permitted to hold its bucket though the greater part of its body remained outside the private domain. described by the general term of beast.