עירובין 67:2 — Soncino English Talmud

Even if it opened to a karpaf. Both Rabbah and R. Joseph ruled: A gentile causes restrictions [if his karpaf was no bigger than] two beth se'ah, but if it was bigger he causes no restrictions; an Israelite, however, causes no restrictions [if his karpaf was no bigger than] two beth se'ah, but if it was bigger he does cause restrictions. Raba b. Haklai asked R. Huna: What is the ruling where [the door of a gentile's courtyard] opened into a karpaf The other replied: Behold it has been said: ‘Causes restrictions if [his karpaf was no bigger than] two beth se'ah, but if it was bigger he causes no restrictions’. Ulla laid down in the name of R. Johanan: If a man threw an object into a karpaf that was bigger than two beth se'ah and that was not enclosed for dwelling purposes he incurs guilt even if it was of the size of a kor or even as big as two kors. What is the reason? — It is a proper enclosure which only lacks tenants. R. Huna b. Hinena raised all objection: If a rock in the sea was ten handbreadths high and four handbreadths wide it is forbidden to move objects from it into the sea and from the sea into it; but if it was lower this is permitted. To what extent? To two beth se'ah. Now what do these refer to? If it be suggested: To the final clause, the objection would arise: Seeing that one would only be moving front a karmelith to a karmelith, why only two beth se'ah, and no more? Consequently it must refer to the first clause, and what was implied was this: ‘If a rock in the sea was ten handbreadths high and four handbreadths wide it is forbidden to move objects from it into the sea and from the sea into it’, and ‘To what extent? To two beth se'ah’, from which it follows that if it was bigger than two beth se'ah the movement of objects is permitted. It is thus obvious that a rock of such dimensions has the status of a karmelith. Does not this then present an objection against R. Johanan? — Raba retorted: only he who does not know how to explain Baraithas raises such an objection against R. Johanan. [The limitation] as a matter of fact refers to the first clause, and it is this that was meant: Within it, however, it is permitted to move objects; and ‘To what extent? To two beth se'ah’. R. Ashi replied: [The limitation applies] indeed to the first clause, for the Rabbis have laid down the one ruling and they themselves have also laid down the other ruling: They have laid down the ruling that in a karpaf that was bigger than two beth se'ah and that was not enclosed for dwelling purposes the movement of objects is permitted Only within four cubits, and they themselves have also laid down the ruling that no objects may be moved from a private domain into a karmelith. [In the case, therefore, of a rock that was no bigger than] two beth se'ah, throughout the area of which the movement of objects is permitted, the Rabbis have forbidden the movement of objects from the sea into it as well as from it into the sea. What is the reason? Because it is a private domain In all respects. [If, however, It was] bigger than two beth se'ah, throughout the area of which the movement of objects is forbidden, the Rabbis permitted the movement of objects from it into the sea and from the sea into it. What is the reason? Because, otherwise, people might assume it to be a private domain in all respects and, in consequence, would also move objects throughout its area. But wherein does the one differ from the other? — It is usual to move objects within the area of the rock itself but it is unusual to move objects from it into the sea or from the sea into it. There was once a child whose warm water was spilled. ‘Let some warm water’, said Rabbah ‘be brought for him from my house’. ‘But’, observed Abaye, ‘We have prepared no ‘erub’. ‘Let us then rely’, the other replied. ‘on the shittuf’. ‘But’, Abaye told him, ‘we had no shittuf either’. ‘Then’, the other said: ‘let a gentile be instructed to bring it for him’ — ‘l wished’, Abaye later remarked: ‘to point out an objection against the Master but R. Joseph prevented me, because he told me in the name of R. Kahana, "When we were at Rab Judah's he used to tell us that in a Pentateuchal matter any objection must be raised before the Master's ruling is acted upon. but in a Rabbinical matter we must first act on the ruling of the Master and then point out the objection".’ After that he said to him, ‘What objection was it that you wished to raise against the Master?’ ‘It was taught’, the other replied, ‘that "sprinkling" on the Sabbath is only Rabbinically forbidden. Now, instructing a gentile to do work on the Sabbath is also Rabbinically forbidden,^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^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

^ᵃnote:Does not the heathen in any way restrict the use of the alley for its residents.
^ᵇnote:Whose courtyard had one door opening into an alley in which courtyard doors of Israelites also opened, and another door opening into a karpaf.
^ᶜnote:On the use of the alley by his Israelite neighbours.
^ᵈnote:Since the area of the karpaf is not big enough to induce him to give up his use of the alley.
^ᵉnote:In consequence of which he prefers to use the karpaf and the door that leads to it, and dispenses entirely with his right to the use of the alley.
^ᶠnote:On the use of the alley by his Israelite neighbours.
^ᵍnote:V. supra n. 5.
^ʰnote:Even if he did not join in the ‘erub of the other residents.
^ⁱnote:As he is permitted to use a karpaf of such a size on the Sabbath, and since its area fully suffices for all his possible Sabbath requirements and is also more convenient for his use than the comparatively smaller space of the alley, he is presumed to have dispensed with his right to the use of the alley which may, therefore, be provided by its other residents with a valid ‘erub even if he does not participate in it.
^ʲnote:So that it has the status of a karmelith (v. Glos.) into which he is forbidden to move any objects from his courtyard on the Sabbath.
^ᵏnote:Being inevitably driven to the use of the alley.
^ˡnote:MS.M., ‘Hakuka’.
^ᵐnote:According to Rab Judah who spoke (supra 67a ad fin.) of a door that opened into a valley.
^ⁿnote:That had also a door to an alley in which Israelites resided.
^ᵒnote:Sc. has a karpaf the same status as a valley?
^ᵖnote:Supra q.v. notes.
^ᵠnote:From a public domain, on the Sabbath when it is forbidden to move objects from a public domain into a private one and vice versa.
^ʳnote:Sc. he is liable to bring a sin-offering as if he had thrown the object into a private domain.
^ˢnote:I.e., since a karpaf of the size mentioned is subject to the law of a karmelith, within which the movement of objects beyond the distance of four cubits is forbidden, why should it here be regarded as a private domain?
^ᵗnote:Hence it has Pentateuchally the same status as a private domain, and guilt is therefore incurred for throwing any objects from a public domain into it.
^ᵘnote:In consequence of which it was Rabbinically subjected to the restrictions of a karmelith also.
^ᵛnote:MS. M., ‘Hanina’.
^ʷnote:A sea is subject to the restrictions of a karmelith.
^ˣnote:Even within four cubits; because a rock of the dimensions given has the status of a private domain into which from a karmelith and into a karmelith from which it is forbidden to move objects on the Sabbath.
^ʸnote:Lit., ‘less than here (stated)’.
^ᶻnote:Lit., ‘(they may) move (objects)’, from the sea into it and from it into the sea, within four cubits, since such a low rock has the status of a karmelith like the sea which surrounds it.
^ᵃᵃnote:In the area of the rock. It will be explained presently what the question and the following answer refer to.
^ᵃᵇnote:But not to a bigger area.
^ᵃᶜnote:The last question and answer.
^ᵃᵈnote:Which deals with a rock that was lower than ten handbreadths.
^ᵃᵉnote:Since, whatever its area, a rock that is lower than ten handbreadths has the status of a karmelith.
^ᵃᶠnote:Lit., ‘but not?’
^ᵃᵍnote:Of area of rock.
^ᵃʰnote:Cf. supra n. 9 mut. mut.
^ᵃⁱnote:On account of its big area, despite its height.
^ᵃʲnote:The relaxation of the law in turning a private domain into a karmelith on account of the extent of its area.
^ᵃᵏnote:Who laid down supra that though a karpaf was bigger than two beth se'ah it is still subject to the restrictions of a private domain and that a person who threw an object from a public domain into it incurs guilt.
^ᵃˡnote:To ‘two beth se'ah’, in the Baraitha cited by R. Huna b. Hinena.
^ᵃᵐnote:Which deals with a rock that was lover than ten handbreadths.
^ᵃⁿnote:Sc. on the surface of the rock itself.
^ᵃᵒnote:Since the first clause only stated that ‘it is forbidden to move objects from it into the sea and from the sea into it’ and did not forbid the movement of objects on the surface of the rock from one part of it to another.
^ᵃᵖnote:Of area of rock is the movement of objects on the rock itself permitted.
^ᵃᵠnote:But if it is bigger it loses, on account of its wide extent and the absence of inhabitants, the status of a private domain in respect of the movement of objects within it, and assumes that of a karmelith. Had it not been subjected to these restrictions people might erroneously have treated a public domain also with the same laxity. On account of its height, however, it retains, in relation to the sea, the status of a private domain the movement of objects from which into the sea and vice versa remains forbidden.
^ᵃʳnote:To ‘two beth se'ah’, in the Baraitha cited by R. Huna b. Hinena.
^ᵃˢnote:But not, as Raba explained, to an inference from that clause.
^ᵃᵗnote:That relating to a karpaf as enunciated by R. Johanan.
^ᵃᵘnote:The one in the first clause of the Baraitha cited by R. Huna b. Hinena as defined by the limitation at its conclusion. Since both rulings are merely Rabbinical and not Pentateuchal the Rabbis could well abrogate one in favour of the other wherever the general requirements of the Sabbath laws demanded such a course; as will be explained anon.
^ᵃᵛnote:Sc. that it has been given the status of a karmelith as a restriction and safeguard against mistaking it for a public domain and applying its relaxation to the latter also. It is nevertheless forbidden to move airy objects from it into a public domain or vice versa since, as R. Johanan stated, it is Pentateuchally regarded as a private domain proper.
^ᵃʷnote:As a precaution against the moving of objects from a private into a public domain.
^ᵃˣnote:Since the prohibition only strengthens the Sabbath laws and can in no way lead, as in the case that follows, to their infringement.
^ᵃʸnote:For the imposition of the restrictions.
^ᵃᶻnote:The rock whose area was less than two beth se'ah.
^ᵇᵃnote:And no infringement of the law (cf. infra n. 10) need be provided against.
^ᵇᵇnote:It having been given the status of a karmelith.
^ᵇᶜnote:Within four cubits.
^ᵇᵈnote:Sc. why were not the restriction had been imposed and the movement of this case also?
^ᵇᵉnote:If the restrictions had been imposed ant the movement of objects from it into the sea or vice versa had been forbidden even within four cubits.
^ᵇᶠnote:Even beyond four cubits. As this, however, "would entail an infringement of the Rabbinical law which imposed on such an area the restrictions of a karmelith, it was considered preferable to abrogate in this case the law forbidding the movement of objects between a karmelith and a private domain.
^ᵇᵍnote:I.e., why should the law against moving objects between a karmelith and a private domain be abrogated rather than the one forbidding the movement of objects beyond four cubits in a private domain that was bigger than two beth se'ah?
^ᵇʰnote:Hence it was necessary to enact a preventive measure.
^ᵇⁱnote:Against that which is unusual no preventive measures were enacted. Only in the case of a private domain and a karmelith on land, the movement of objects between which is not infrequent, has such a preventive measure been deemed necessary.
^ᵇʲnote:That was prepared for him prior to the Sabbath, in connection with his circumcision due on the Sabbath day, and kept warm for the purpose.
^ᵇᵏnote:On the Sabbath.
^ᵇˡnote:Which was in the same courtyard.
^ᵇᵐnote:Sc. an ‘erub of courtyards’ which enables the tenants of different houses in the same courtyard to move objects from house to house through the courtyard area.
^ᵇⁿnote:V. Glos. Shittuf in an alley in relation to its courtyards and the houses in their courtyards serves the same purpose as that of ‘erub in a courtyard in relation to its houses (cf. infra 73a).
^ᵇᵒnote:Rabbah
^ᵇᵖnote:Concerning which a Master gives a decision.
^ᵇᵠnote:Which a student wishes to raise against it.
^ᵇʳnote:Since very great care must be exercised in any action that might possibly infringe a Pentateuchal law.
^ᵇˢnote:Concerning which a Master gives a decision.
^ᵇᵗnote:out of respect for the Master, and on the assumption that he would be able to give a suitable answer to the students’ objection.
^ᵇᵘnote:As the law of ‘erub of courtyards is only Rabbinical Abaye had no alternative but to act on Rabbah's ruling.
^ᵇᵛnote:R. Joseph.
^ᵇʷnote:Abaye.
^ᵇˣnote:On an unclean person, of the water of purification containing the ashes of the red heifer (cf. Num. XIX, 2ff).
^ᵇʸnote:Shebuth v. Glos.
^ᵇᶻnote:for an Israelite.
^ᶜᵃnote:If that work is forbidden on the Sabbath to an Israelite.