Eruvin

But does not a contradiction still remain between the two rulings regarding a human being?1 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 knowledge2 while the latter refers to a man so used without his knowledge.3 Was not, however, the arrangement for Nehemiah son of R. Hanilai, made with [the men's] knowledge? No, without their knowledge.4 R. Hisda5 at any rate must have known? R. Hisda was not one of the number.6 Certain gardeners once brought water7 through human walls8 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?9 A number of skin bottles were once lying in the manor10 of Mahuza and, while Raba was coming from his discourse,11 [his attendant]12 carried13 them in.14 On a subsequent Sabbath he desired to carry them in again,14 but he15 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;16 for Ze'iri cattle fodder,16 and for R. Shimi b. Hiyya water.16 MISHNAH. IF A MAN WHO WAS PERMITTED TO DO SO17 WENT OUT BEYOND THE SABBATH LIMIT AND WAS THEN TOLD THAT THE ACT18 HAD ALREADY BEEN PERFORMED, HE IS ENTITLED TO MOVE WITHIN TWO THOUSAND CUBITS19 IN ANY DIRECTION. IF HE WAS WITHIN THE SABBATH LIMIT HE IS REGARDED AS IF HE HAD NOT GONE OUT.20 ALL21 WHO GO OUT TO SAVE LIFE MAY RETURN TO THEIR ORIGINAL PLACES.20 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?22 — Rabbah replied: It is this that was meant: IF HE WAS WITHIN his SABBATH LIMIT23 HE IS REGARDED AS IF HE HAD NOT GONE OUT of his house.24 Is not this Obvious?25 — It might have been presumed that as he tore [himself away from his original abode]26 he has thereby detached [himself completely from it],27 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 him28 overlapped with his original Sabbath limit29 HE30 IS REGARDED AS IF HE HAD NOT GONE OUT of his original Sabbath limit. On what principle do they31 differ? — The one Master32 is of the opinion that the overlapping of Sabbath limits is of significance33 while the other Master34 maintains that it is of no consequence.35 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 cavern36 the length of the floor of whose interior was four thousand cubits37 and that of its roof was less than four thousand cubits?37 Would he not be able to move all along its roof and two thousand cubits beyond it?38 — The other replied: Do you make no distinction between a case where39 the man began to spend the Sabbath within the walls of his abode, while it was yet day40 and one41 where he did not begin to spend the Sabbath between the walls42 while it was yet day?43 — [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, 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. such circumstances he regarded as a valid wall. new moon, which involves the religious observance of a festival. 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. him, irrespective of whether this happened beyond, or within his original Sabbath limit. thousand cubits. 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.). in which there were two doors, one at the side of either wall. 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? 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.