עירובין 44 — Soncino English Talmud

¹or whether the halachah was not in agreement with R. Gamaliel or do we deal [here with a case where the distance could] not be fully lined with men, and the point he raised was whether the halachah is in agreement with R. Eliezer or not? — It is obvious that we are dealing with [a case where the distance could] not be fully lined with men, for were it to be imagined that we are dealing with one where it could be fully lined with men what was there for him to ask seeing that Rab has actually laid down, ‘The halachah is in agreement with R. Gamaliel in respect of a cattle-pen, a cattle-fold and a ship’? We must consequently be dealing with [a case where the distance could] not be fully lined with men and the point he raised was in connection with the ruling of R. Eliezer. This is also borne out by an inference. For he said to him, ‘Let him re-enter’; but what [was the need for saying] ‘Let him re-enter’? Does not this imply re-entry in the absence of a complete wall? R. Nahman b. Isaac pointed Out the following objection to Raba: If its wall collapsed it is not permitted to replace it by a human being, a beast or vessels, nor may one put up the bed to spread over it a sheet because even a temporary tent may not for the first time be built on a festival day, and there is no need to state [that this is forbidden] on a Sabbath day. ‘You,’ the other replied: ‘quote to me from this statement; I can quote to you from the following: A man may put up his fellow as a wall in order that he may thereby be enabled to eat, to drink and to sleep, and he may put up the bed and spread over it a sheet to prevent the sun rays from falling upon a corpse or upon foodstuffs’. Are then the two rulings mutually contradictory? There is really no contradiction, since one represents the view of R. Eliezer and the other that of the Rabbis. For we learned: in the case of the stopper of a sky-light, R. Eliezer says that if it was tied and suspended one may close the sky-light with it; otherwise it may not be so used; but the Sages ruled: In either case one may close the sky-light with it. Has it not, however, been stated in connection with this ruling: Rabbah b. Bar Hana said in the name of R. Johanan: All agree that not even a temporary tent may for the first time be made on a festival day, and there is no need to say that this may not be done on a Sabbath day; but they differ on the question of adding to a structure, since R. Eliezer holds that no such structural addition may be made on a festival day, and there is no need to say that this may hot be done on a Sabbath day, while the Sages maintain that such structural additions’ may be made on a Sabbath, and there is no need to say that this may be done on a festival day? — The fact is that there is really no contradiction, since one Baraitha represents the view of R. Meir and the other that of R. Judah. For it was taught: If a man used a beast as a wall for a sukkah, R. Meir ruled it to be invalid while R. Judah ruled it to be valid. Now, R. Meir who ruled the wall there to be invalid, from which it is evident that he does not regard it as a proper wall, would here permit the putting up of a similar wall, since thereby nothing improper is done, while R. Judah who regards the wall there as valid, from which it is evident that he regards it as a proper wall, would here forbid a similar wall. Do you regard this as sound reasoning? Might it not be suggested that R. Meir was heard [to rule the wall to be invalid only in the case of] a beast, was he, however, heard [to give the same ruling in respect of] a human being and vessels? Furthermore, in agreement with whose view could that of R. Meir be? If it be suggested: In agreement with that of R. Eliezer one could object that the latter forbade even the addition to a Structure. Consequently it must be in agreement with that of the Rabbis; but could it not be objected: The Rabbis may only have permitted the addition to a structure, did this, however, make it permissible to put up a full wall at the outset? — The fact is that both are in agreement with the view of the Rabbis; yet there is no contradiction between the rulings regarding vessels, since the former relates to a third wall and the latter to a fourth one. The inference from the wording leads to the same conclusion; for it was stated: ‘If its wall collapsed’. This is conclusive.^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:I.e.,the human walls did not reach the Sabbath limit, and a gap of two cubits intervened between them and the limit.
^ᵇnote:Who (cf. Mishnah infra 52b) permits the return of a person who walked two cubits beyond the Sabbath limit.
^ᶜnote:R. Hisda.
^ᵈnote:That the distance was not fully covered by the human walls and that a gap of two cubits remained.
^ᵉnote:R. Nahman.
^ᶠnote:R. Hisda.
^ᵍnote:After he had already told him to arrange for human walls, was it not obvious that Nehemiah could re-enter by passing through them?
^ʰnote:Lit., ‘without a wall’. Cf. supra n. 8. Had the walls reached as far as the Sabbath limit there would have been no need to add the last clause (cf. supra p. 302, n. 11). Its addition, therefore, must imply re-entry despite the gap of the two cubits, in agreement with R. Eliezer.
^ⁱnote:One of the walls of a sukkah (v. Glos.).
^ʲnote:In place of the fallen wall.
^ᵏnote:Which was already in the sukkah and the mere shifting of which from one place to another would not appear as the direct construction of a wall.
^ˡnote:How then was it permitted supra to draw up walls of human beings on a Sabbath day.
^ᵐnote:For a sukkah.
^ⁿnote:These are the principal purposes for which a sukkah serves.
^ᵒnote:Which proves that a human being may constitute a wall.
^ᵖnote:Quoted by R. Nahman b. Isaac and Raba respectively.
^ᵠnote:Because the closing up of the skylight, though only of a temporary character, has the appearance of a structural alteration which is forbidden on the Sabbath. This view is in agreement with that cited by R. Nahman b. Isaac.
^ʳnote:Whether it was tied and suspended or not.
^ˢnote:Shab. 125b, 137b, Suk. 27b; in agreement with the view cited by Raba.
^ᵗnote:Even the Sages.
^ᵘnote:Or ‘roof’.
^ᵛnote:As is the case when the stopper is inserted in the sky-light and the gap in the roof is closed up.
^ʷnote:Shab. 125b. As the Baraitha quoted by Raba permits the putting up of a complete wall, and not merely an addition to an existing one, it cannot be in agreement even with the view of the Sages. The difficulty as to the contradiction between the two quoted Baraithas arises again.
^ˣnote:Since the beast might at any moment escape (cf. Suk. 21a).
^ʸnote:Suk. 23b.
^ᶻnote:Because it consisted of an animate being.
^ᵃᵃnote:A human being or a beast in agreement with the Baraitha quoted supra by R. Nahman b. Isaac.
^ᵃᵇnote:The wall being deemed to be non-existent as far as the sukkah is concerned.
^ᵃᶜnote:In agreement with the Baraitha quoted by Raba.
^ᵃᵈnote:Who has the sense to remain in his place.
^ᵃᵉnote:Which cannot even move.
^ᵃᶠnote:Though it be granted that the sukkah, despite the added wall, remains invalid.
^ᵃᵍnote:That which permits the putting up of the wall on account of its invalidity.
^ᵃʰnote:How then could he permit the addition of the wall?
^ᵃⁱnote:As is the case with he structure of the window.
^ᵃʲnote:The apparently contradictory Baraithas
^ᵃᵏnote:In the two cited Baraithas, the second of which does, and the first of which does not permit the putting up of a bed as a wall for a sukkah.
^ᵃˡnote:Two walls constitute no hut and the putting up of a third one completes the structure. The Rabbis agree that not even a temporary hut may for the first time be put up on the Sabbath.
^ᵃᵐnote:As three walls constitute a hut the putting up of a fourth one is a mere addition to an already existing structure which the Rabbis permit.
^ᵃⁿnote:Of the first cited Baraitha.
^ᵃᵒnote:That the prohibition refers to a third wall.
^ᵃᵖnote:Emphasis on ‘its wall’, sc. the third wall whereby the sukkah becomes valid. A fourth one does not in any way affect the sukkah's validity (cf. Suk. 2a).

²But does not a contradiction still remain between the two rulings regarding a human being? There is really no contradiction between the two rulings regarding a human being, since the former refers to a man used as a wall with his knowledge while the latter refers to a man so used without his knowledge. Was not, however, the arrangement for Nehemiah son of R. Hanilai, made with [the men's] knowledge? No, without their knowledge. R. Hisda at any rate must have known? R. Hisda was not one of the number. Certain gardeners once brought water through human walls and Samuel had them flogged. He said: If the Rabbis permitted human walls where the men composing them were unaware of the purpose they served would they also permit such walls where the men were aware of the purpose? A number of skin bottles were once lying in the manor of Mahuza and, while Raba was coming from his discourse, [his attendant] carried them in. On a subsequent Sabbath he desired to carry them in again, but he forbade it to them because in the second case the human walls must be regarded as having been put up with the men's knowledge, which is forbidden. For Levi straw was brought in; for Ze'iri cattle fodder, and for R. Shimi b. Hiyya water. MISHNAH. IF A MAN WHO WAS PERMITTED TO DO SO WENT OUT BEYOND THE SABBATH LIMIT AND WAS THEN TOLD THAT THE ACT HAD ALREADY BEEN PERFORMED, HE IS ENTITLED TO MOVE WITHIN TWO THOUSAND CUBITS IN ANY DIRECTION. IF HE WAS WITHIN THE SABBATH LIMIT HE IS REGARDED AS IF HE HAD NOT GONE OUT. ALL WHO GO OUT TO SAVE LIFE MAY RETURN TO THEIR ORIGINAL PLACES. GEMARA. What [need was there for the ruling], IF HE WAS WITHIN THE SABBATH LIMIT HE IS REGARDED AS IF HE HAD NOT GONE OUT? — Rabbah replied: It is this that was meant: IF HE WAS WITHIN his SABBATH LIMIT HE IS REGARDED AS IF HE HAD NOT GONE OUT of his house. Is not this Obvious? — It might have been presumed that as he tore [himself away from his original abode] he has thereby detached [himself completely from it], hence we were informed [that IF HE WAS WITHIN his SABBATH LIMIT HE IS REGARDED AS IF HE HAD NOT GONE OUT OF HIS HOUSE]. R. Shimi b. Hiyya replied: It is this that was meant: If the Sabbath limits which the Rabbis have allowed him overlapped with his original Sabbath limit HE IS REGARDED AS IF HE HAD NOT GONE OUT of his original Sabbath limit. On what principle do they differ? — The one Master is of the opinion that the overlapping of Sabbath limits is of significance while the other Master maintains that it is of no consequence. Said Abaye to Rabbah: Are you not of the opinion that the overlapping of Sabbath limits is of significance? What if a man spent the Sabbath in a cavern the length of the floor of whose interior was four thousand cubits and that of its roof was less than four thousand cubits? Would he not be able to move all along its roof and two thousand cubits beyond it? — The other replied: Do you make no distinction between a case where the man began to spend the Sabbath within the walls of his abode, while it was yet day and one where he did not begin to spend the Sabbath between the walls while it was yet day? — [You say] that where a man did not begin to spend the Sabbath [within the walls of an abode common to both limits overlapping of the limits is of] no consequence,^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ^ᵃᵛ^ᵃʷ^ᵃˣ^ᵃʸ^ᵃᶻ^ᵇᵃ^ᵇᵇ^ᵇᶜ^ᵇᵈ^ᵇᵉ^ᵇᶠ^ᵇᵍ^ᵇʰ^ᵇⁱ^ᵇʲ^ᵇᵏ^ᵇˡ^ᵇᵐ^ᵇⁿ^ᵇᵒ^ᵇᵖ^ᵇᵠ^ᵇʳ^ᵇˢ^ᵇᵗ^ᵇᵘ^ᵇᵛ^ᵇʷ^ᵇˣ^ᵇʸ^ᵇᶻ^ᶜᵃ^ᶜᵇ^ᶜᶜ^ᶜᵈ^ᶜᵉ^ᶜᶠ^ᶜᵍ

^ᵃᵠnote:In the former Baraitha a Human being is forbidden to be used as a wall while in the latter he is permitted. The answer given in connection with vessels, that the latter deals with a fourth wall, is inapplicable since the Baraitha specifically speaks of that wall as enabling other ‘to eat, to drink and to sleep’. Only the third wall but not a fourth one does that.
^ᵃʳnote:As he agrees to constitute a proper wall he must not be used for the purpose on Sabbaths or Festivals.
^ᵃˢnote:This is permitted since no hut is constructed in such a manner and on no account, in consequence, can the man in such circumstances he regarded as a valid wall.
^ᵃᵗnote:They did not know for what purpose they were told to line up.
^ᵃᵘnote:Who presumably took his place in the lines arranged for Nehemiah.
^ᵃᵛnote:Of those who made up the lines.
^ᵃʷnote:On a Sabbath day, from a public, into a private domain.
^ᵃˣnote:The men forming them having been aware of the purpose they were to serve.
^ᵃʸnote:Obviously not. Hence the culpability of the gardeners.
^ᵃᶻnote:Which was, of course, a public domain. [On the manor of Mahuza, Rostaka di Mahuza, v. Obermeyer, p. 172].
^ᵇᵃnote:The crowds following him.
^ᵇᵇnote:So Rashi.
^ᵇᶜnote:Through the crowds that formed so to speak human walls on either side of the carriers.
^ᵇᵈnote:Into a private domain (cf. previous note).
^ᵇᵉnote:Raba.
^ᵇᶠnote:Through human walls, on a Sabbath, from a public domain into a private one.
^ᵇᵍnote:If his journey, for instance, had for its purpose the saving of life or the tendering of evidence on the appearance of a new moon, which involves the religious observance of a festival.
^ᵇʰnote:Which he intended to do.
^ᵇⁱnote:From the spot where the report was brought to him.
^ᵇʲnote:This is explained in the Gemara infra.
^ᵇᵏnote:Mishnah ed., ‘because all’; MS.M., ‘and all’.
^ᵇˡnote:Is not this obvious?
^ᵇᵐnote:When he received the report.
^ᵇⁿnote:Sc. he may move within two thousand cubits from his house in any direction, AS IF HE HAD NOT GONE OUT from it and not, as would have been the case if he had heard the report without his Sabbath limit, from the spot where he heard it.
^ᵇᵒnote:So long as a man has not gone beyond his Sabbath limit he is, of course, entitled to his original rights of movement.
^ᵇᵖnote:By deciding, under Rabbinic sanction, to go beyond his original Sabbath limit.
^ᵇᵠnote:For the rest of the Sabbath day; his new abode being the spot where the report spoken of in our Mishnah reached him, irrespective of whether this happened beyond, or within his original Sabbath limit.
^ᵇʳnote:The man who went beyond is original Sabbath limit.
^ᵇˢnote:Sc. if the distance between the spot where the report had reached him and his own home was less than four thousand cubits.
^ᵇᵗnote:Since the new limit to which he is entitled enables him to come within two thousand cubits distance from his home.
^ᵇᵘnote:Rabbah and R. Shimi b. Hiyya.
^ᵇᵛnote:The last mentioned.
^ᵇʷnote:Hence it is permissible to move within the two Sabbath limits as if they had constituted one single limit.
^ᵇˣnote:Rabbah.
^ᵇʸnote:The man's movements are consequently restricted to one Sabbath limit even though that limit overlapped with his original one. Hence Rabbah's recourse to a different answer from that of R. Shimi. (For another interpretation v. Rashi s.v. ,htu a.l.).
^ᵇᶻnote:Two of whose opposite walls were sloping upwards towards one another and thereby reducing the length of the roof in which there were two doors, one at the side of either wall.
^ᶜᵃnote:Cf. previous note.
^ᶜᵇnote:In either direction, from either door. If one door, for instance, was on the east side of the cavern and the other on its west side, the former would enable the man to move a distance of two thousand cubits from the east side of that door and another two thousand cubits from its west side, while the latter door would similarly enable him to move along equal distances from both its sides. But since the western limit of the eastern door overlaps along the roof with the eastern limit of the western door, the man is in consequence permitted to move along a distance of more than four thousand cubits, beginning in the east at a point two thousand cubits from the eastern door and extended along the roof to a point in the west two thousand cubits distant from the western door. If the two Sabbath limits, however, had not overlapped along the roof as would be the case where the roof of the cavern, like its floor, was four thousand cubits long, the man on leaving the eastern door would have been allowed to move to a limit of two thousand cubits in either direction but no further and a similar distance and no further if he left by the western door. How then could Rabbah maintain that overlapping is of no consequence?
^ᶜᶜnote:As in that of the cavern.
^ᶜᵈnote:The Sabbath eve.
^ᶜᵉnote:The case spoken of in our Mishnah.
^ᶜᶠnote:Of his second ‘abode’, the spot where the report was brought to him.
^ᶜᵍnote:Such a distinction must, of course, be drawn. In the former case the two Sabbath limits are acquired simultaneously through the man's stay at the same time within the same cavern; hence the significance and value of the overlapping of the limits. In the latter case, however, when the man was within his original home he had no right whatever to his new Sabbath limit, and when he entered his new ‘abode’ and acquired the right to the new limit he had already quitted his original home. If, therefore, he is entitled to the latter he must, despite the overlapping, lose his right to the former and Vice versa.