Eruvin

who for their sake rises early [to go] to, and remains late in the evening [before returning home from] the schoolhouse.1 Rabbah explained: [You find these only] with him who for their sake blackens his face like a raven.2 Raba explained: With him who can bring himself to be cruel to his children and household like a raven,3 as was the case with4 R. Adda b. Mattenah. He was about to go away to a schoolhouse when his wife said to him, ‘What shall I do with your children?’ — ‘Are there’, he retorted: ‘no more5 herbs6 in the marsh?’ And repayeth them that hate Him to His face, to destroy him.7 R. Joshua b. Levi remarked: Were it not for the written text one could not possibly have said it. Like a man, as it were, who carries a burden on his face8 and wants to throw it off. He will not be slack to him that hateth Him.9 R. Il'a explained: He will not be slack to those that hate Him, but He will be slack to those who are just in all respects; and this is in line with that which R. Joshua b. Levi stated: What [is the implication of] what was written: Which I command thee this day to do them?10 ‘This day [you are] to do them’ but you cannot postpone doing them for tomorrow;11 ‘this day [you are in a position] to do them’ and tomorrow11 [is reserved] for receiving reward for [doing] them. R. Haggai12 (or as some say: R. Samuel b. Nahmani) stated: What [was the purpose] when Scripture wrote: Long-suffering13 [in the dual form]14 where the singular15 might well have been used? But [this is the purport:]16 Long-suffering towards the righteous and long-suffering also towards the wicked. R. JUDAH SAID: [THE ENCLOSURE MAY BE ONLY] AS LARGE AS TWO BETH SE'AH etc. The question was raised: Does he17 mean the [area of the] cistern together with [that between] the strips [of wood]18 or does he mean the cistern alone exclusive of the [area between] the strips?19 Does a man regard20 his cistern [as the permitted area]21 and, consequently,22 it is not necessary to restrict [the permitted area] as a preventive measure against the possibility of one's moving of objects in a karpaf23 that is larger than two both se'ah, or does a man rather regard24 his partition and, consequently, it was necessary to restrict [the permitted area]25 as a preventive measure against the possibility of assuming26 [that an area of] more than two beth se'ah [is permitted] in the case of a karpaf23 also? — Come and hear: How near27 may [the strips of wood] be? As near as [to admit] the head and the greater part of the body of a cow. And how far may they be? Even [so far as to enclose a beth] kor or even two beth kor. R. Judah ruled: [An area of] two beth se'ah is permitted but one larger than two beth se'ah is forbidden. ‘Do you not admit’, they said to R. Judah, ‘that in the case of a cattle-pen or cattle-fold, a rearcourt or a courtyard even [an area as large as] five or ten beth kor is permitted?’ He replied: This28 is [a proper] partition but those are mere strips [of wood]. R. Simeon b. Eleazar said: A cistern [the area of which is] two beth se'ah by two beth se'ah is permitted, and [the Rabbis] permitted29 to remove [the strips of wood from, it] only so far [as to admit] the head and the greater part of the body of a cow. Now, since R. Simeon b. Eleazar spoke of the cistern exclusive of the strips [of wood] it follows, does it not, that R. Judah spoke of the cistern together with the strips? — [In fact,] however, this is not [correct]. R. Judah spoke of the cistern exclusive of the [area between it and] the strips. If so, [is not his ruling] exactly the same as that of R. Simeon b. Eleazar? — The practical difference between them is [an enclosure that is] long and narrow.30 R. Simeon b. Eleazar laid down a general rule: Any [enclosed] space31 used as a dwelling as, for instance, a cattle-pen or cattle-fold, a rearcourt or a courtyard is permitted even if it is as large as five or even ten beth kor, and any dwelling that is used for [service in] the air [outside] as, for instance, field huts32 is permitted [only if its area is] two beth se'ah but if it is more than two beth se'ah it is forbidden. MISHNAH. R. JUDAH RULED: IF A PUBLIC ROAD CUTS THROUGH THEM33 IT SHOULD BE DIVERTED TO ONE SIDE;34 BUT THE SAGES RULED: THIS IS NOT NECESSARY. GEMARA. Both R. Johanan and R. Eleazar stated: Here they35 informed you of the unassailable validity of partitions.36 ‘Here [etc.]’ [seems to imply that] he37 is of the same opinion; but did not Rabbah b. Bar Hana state in the name of R. Johanan: Jerusalem,38 were it not that its gates were closed at night,39 would have been subject to the restrictions of a public domain?40 — Rather: ‘Here [etc.]’, but he himself is not of the same opinion. An incongruity, however, was pointed out between two rulings of R. Judah and between two rulings of the Rabbis. For it was taught: A more [lenient rule] than this did R. Judah lay down: If a man had two houses on two sides [respectively] of a public domain he may41 construct one side-post on one side [of any of the houses] and another on the other side, or one cross-beam on the one side and another on its other side and then he may move things about42 in the space between them;43 but they said to him: A public domain cannot be provided with an ‘erub in such a manner.44 Now does not this present a contradiction between one ruling of R. Judah and another ruling of his45 and between one ruling of the Rabbis and another ruling of theirs?46 — There is really no contradiction between the two rulings of R. Judah. There47 [it is a case] where two proper walls are available, but here48 two proper walls are not available. There is no contradiction between the two rulings of the Rabbis either, since here48 the name of four partitions at least is available,49 but there50 even the name of four partitions does not exist. R. Isaac b. Joseph stated in the name of R. Johanan: In the Land of Israel no guilt is incurred on account of [moving objects in] a public domain. R. Dimi sitting at his studies recited this traditional ruling. Said Abaye to R. Dimi. What is the reason? ‘evening’ ,hcrg. bread. Aliter: A water plant bearing a fruit, the kernels of which may, by first cooking them, be made fit for human consumption. lghsuv (‘he informed you’). domain. ruling in the Baraitha cited it does not.