Eruvin

why then should it not be said: As "sprinkling" on the Sabbath which is a Rabbinical prohibition does not supersede the Sabbath1 so should not an instruction to a gentile to do work on the Sabbath which is also Rabbinically forbidden supersede the Sabbath?’2 — ‘Do you’, the first retorted: ‘draw no distinction between a Rabbinical prohibition that involves a manual cat3 and one4 that involves no such act?’5 ‘How is it, Rabbah son of R. Hanan) asked Abaye, ‘that in an alley in which two great men like you6 reside there should be neither ‘erub nor shittuf?’ — ‘What’, the other replied. ‘can we do? For the Master7 [to collect the tenants’ contribution].8 would not be becoming,9 l am busy with my studies, and the other tenants do not care. And were I10 to transfer to them the possession of a share of the bread in my basket11 the shittuf, Since If they had asked me for the bread l could not give it to them,12 would be invalid; for it was taught: If one of the residents of an alley13 asked for some of the wine or the oil14 and they refused to give it to them the shittuf is thereby rendered null and void’. ‘Why then’, the first asked: ‘should not the Master transfer to them the possession of a quarter of a log of vinegar15 a cask?’16 — ‘It was taught: [Commodities kept] in store17 may not be used for shittuf’.18 ‘But was It not taught that they19 may be used for shittuf?’ — This, R. Oshaia replied, is no contradiction, since one view is that of Beth Shammai and the other is that of Beth Hillel. For we learned: If a corpse lay in a house that had many doors20 all the doorways21 are unclean.22 If one of them was opened, that doorway is unclean while all the others are clean.23 If it was intended to take out the corpse through one of them, or through a window that measured four handbreadths by four, this protects all the doors.24 Beth Shammai ruled: This25 applies only where the intention was formed before the person in question was dead,26 but Beth Hillel ruled: Even if it was formed after he was dead.27 There was once a certain child28 whose warm water29 was spilled out.30 Said Raba: ‘Let us ask his mother [and] if she requires any, a gentile31 might warm some for him indirectly through his mother’. ‘His mother’, R. Mesharsheya told Raba, ‘is already eating dates’.32 ‘It is quite possible’, the other replied, ‘that it was merely a stupor that had seized her’. 33 There was once a child34 whose warm water35 was spilled out.36 ‘Remove my things’, ordered Raba,37 ‘from the men's quarters38 to the women's quarters39 and I will go and sit there40 so that41 I may renounce in favour of the tenants of the child's courtyard42 the right I have in this one’.43 ‘But’, said Rabina to Raba, ‘did not Samuel lay down: No renunciation of one's right in a courtyard is permitted where two courtyards are involved?’44 — ‘I’, the other replied, ‘hold the same view as R. Johanan who laid down: It is permitted to renounce one's right in a courtyard even where two courtyards are involved’. ‘But’, the first asked: ‘if the Master does not hold the same view as Samuel consequence be postponed (cf. Pes. 65b). commandment must thereby be superseded a verbal may well be permitted where it is essential for the observance of a commandment such as circumcision with which Rabbah had to deal. The insertion in cur. edd., ‘for the master, surely, did not tell the gentile: Go and warm (it)’, is deleted by Bah. to assert his claim. between the courtyards and the houses. could possibly distinguish between the quantity that had been so designated and the general contents of the cask; and any quantity that one may happen to use at any time might be assumed to be the quantity that had been designated for the shittuf which in consequence would cease to exist. within the room, is levitically unclean. formed before the person was dead, and all the doors had been affected by the uncleanness, any subsequent intention cannot retrospectively, cause a differentiation between the one door and the others. non-identified quantity: According to Beth Hillel the shittuf is valid, since any quantity of the contents that remain in the cask may be retrospectively regarded as the original quantity assigned for the shittuf: while according to Beth Shammai it cannot be so regarded and the shittuf is consequently invalid. the first seven days (circumcision cannot take place before the eighth clay) an Israelite, though himself forbidden to do for her sake any work that is forbidden on the Sabbath, may request a gentile to do it. which, consequently, must not be prepared for her on the Sabbath. water it is permitted to request a gentile to warm some for her and so, indirectly, for the child also. joint ‘erub for the two courtyards had been prepared but they had a common door between them. Cur.ed., ‘to them’, is omitted with MS.M. except by way of the men's quarters. therewith also the right to carry objects from one courtyard into the other through the common door. Thus they would be placed in a position enabling them to carry the required warm water to the child's apartment. Raba, on the other hand, who, as a result of his renunciation, would be deprived of the use of his courtyard, would be protected against the possible use of it through forgetfulness by his removal to the inner apartments from which he could gain no access to it except through the men's quarters involving a long walk and sufficient time in which to recollect his self-imposed restrictions. the child's courtyard?