עירובין 95 — Soncino English Talmud

¹that a cross-beam of the width of four handbreadths effects permissibility in a ruin and that of R. Nahman who, citing Rabbah b. Abbuha, ruled that a cross-beam of the width of four handbreadths effects permissibility in the case of water, whose view is represented there? According to the version which reads ‘where [a breach was not wider than] ten cubits there is no divergence of opinion’ [these would be a case where the cross-beam was no longer than] ten cubits and would represent the unanimous opinion; while according to the version which reads, ‘They only differ where it was not wider than ten cubits’, these would represent the view of Rab. Must it be assumed that Abaye and Raba differ on the same principles as those on which Rab and Samuel differed? For it was stated: If an exedra that had side-posts was covered with boughs, it is valid as a sukkah; but if it had no side-posts, Abaye ruled, it is still valid while Raba ruled It is invalid. Abaye ruled that it was valid because the edge of the ceiling is deemed to descend and to close up, while Raba ruled that it was invalid because he does not uphold the principle that the edge of the ceiling is deemed to descend and to close up. Now must it be assumed that Abaye is of the same view as Rab while Raba is2of the same view as Samuel? According to the view of Samuel there is no divergence of opinion between them. They differ only on the view of Rab. Abaye, of course, holds the same view as Rab, while Raba maintains that Ra+ upheld his view only there because the walls were expressly made for the exedra, but not here where the walls were not expressly made for the sukkah. R. JOSE RULED: IF THEY ARE PERMITTED. The question was raised: Did R. Jose intend to add restrictions or to relax them? — R. Shesheth replied: To add restricëions; and so too said R. Johanan: To add restrictions. So it was also taught: R. Jose ruled: As they are forbidden on future Sabbaths so are they forbidden on that Sabbath. It was stated: R. Hiyya b. Joseph ruled: The halachah is in agreement with R. Jose, but Samuel ruled: The halachah is in agreement with R. Judah. But could Samuel have given such a ruling seeing that we have learnt: ‘R. Judah ruled: This applies only to ‘erubs of Sabbath limits but in the case of ‘erubs of courtyards one may be prepared for a person irrespective of whether he is aware of it or not, since a benefit may be conferred on a man in his absence but no disability may be imposed on him in his absence’; and in connection with this Rab Judah citing Samuel stated: ‘The halachah is in agreement with R. Judah; and, furthermore, wherever R. Judah taught a law concerning ‘erub the halachah is in agreement with him’; and when R. Hana of Bagdad asked Rab Judah, ‘Did Samuel say this even in respect of an alley whose cross-beam or side-post has been taken away?’ he replied: ‘Concerning ‘erubs did I tell you, but not concerning partitions’? R. Anan replied: It was explained to me by Samuel that one statement referred to a courtyard in which a breach was made towards a karmelith while the other referred to one in which a breach was made towards a public domain. MISHNAH. IF ONE BUILDS AN UPPER ROOM ON THE TOP OF TWO HOUSES AND IN THE CASE OF VIADUCTS THE MOVEMENT OF OBJECTS UNDER THESE ON THE SABBATH IS PERMITÃED; SO R. JUDAH. BUT THE SAGES FORBID THIS. R. JUDAH MOREOVER RULED: AN ‘ERUB MAY BE PREPARED FOR AN ALLEY THAT IS A THOROUGHFARE; BUT THE SAGES FORBID THIS. GEMARA. Rabbah stated: Do not presume that R. Judah's reason is that Pentateuchally two walls are sufficient but rather that the edge of ceiling is deemed to descend downwards and to enclose the space below. Abaye raised an objection against him: ‘A more lenient rule than this did R. Judah lay down: If a man had two houses on the two sides respectively of a public domain he may construct one side-post on one side of any of the houses, and another on the other side, or one cross-beam on one side of any of the houses and another on the other side, and then he may move thingo about in the space between them; but they said to him: A public domain cannot be provided with an ‘erub in such a manner! — The other replied: Front that ruling your contention is justified, from this one, however, you cannot derive it. R. Ashi observed: A deduction from the wording of our Mishnah also justified [Rabbah's explanation], since it was stated: R. JUDAH MOREOVER RULED: AN ‘ERUB MAY BE PREPARED FOR AN ALLEY THAT IS A THOROUGHFARE; BUT THE SAGES FORBID THIS. Now if you grant his reason to be that the edge of the ceiling is deemed to descend and to enclose the space below, one can well see why the expression of MOREOVER was used; but if you maintain that his reason is that Pentateuchally two walls are sufficient, what is the justification for the expression MOREOVER? This is conclusive. MISHNAH. IF A MAN FINDS TEFILLIN HE SHAll BRING THEM IN, ONE PAIR AT A Time. R. GAMALIEL RULED: TWO PAIRS AT A TIME. THIS APPLIES TO OLD ONES BUT IN THE CASE OF NEW ONES HE IS EXEMPT. IF HE FOUND THEM ARRANGED IN PACKETS OR TIED UP IN BUNDLES HE SHALL WAIT BY THEM UNTIL. IT IS DARK AND THEN BRING THEM IN.^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

^ᵃnote:That was supported on two stakes, one at either end.
^ᵇnote:That lay on its wide side. If the width was less, the partitions enclosing it, since the space enclosed is less than four handbreadths, would have had no validity.
^ᶜnote:Of the movement of objects under it; because its four edges are deemed to descend and to form four walls.
^ᵈnote:Though fully exposed to a public domain.
^ᵉnote:That lay on its wide side across the mouth of a cistern between two courtyards.
^ᶠnote:In the use of the water. The tenants of both courtyards may freely use the water as if a proper division had actually separated the water of the one courtyard from the water of the other.
^ᵍnote:Supra 86a.
^ʰnote:Lit., ‘which you stated’.
^ⁱnote:The rulings of Rab Judah and R. Nahman.
^ʲnote:Lit., ‘which you stated’.
^ᵏnote:The rulings of Rab Judah and R. Nahman.
^ˡnote:In the dispute that follows.
^ᵐnote:With only two walls that met each other in the shape of am L (v. Tosaf. supra 93a).
^ⁿnote:Each attached to the end of either wall and less than three handbreadths but no less that one handbreadth wide.
^ᵒnote:Or any material that was suitable for the roof of a sukkah.
^ᵖnote:Since either side-post might be deemed to be extended horizontally and to form a third wall. A Sukkah that has three walls is valid.
^ᵠnote:The side where there was no proper wall.
^ʳnote:Cf. supra 93a, Suk. 18b.
^ˢnote:Abaye and Raba; sc. even Abaye must admit that Samuel who did not accept, in the case of the Sabbath, the principle of the downward extension of the edges of an exedra (though these were expressly made for that structure) could not accept that principle in the case of a sukkah (where these were not originally intended to form a part of the sukkah).
^ᵗnote:Whose view seems to differ from that of Rab.
^ᵘnote:Lit., ‘until here, Rab did not say there, but’.
^ᵛnote:I.e., the beams that form the edges of the roof of the exedra and that are deemed to extend downwards to make up walls.
^ʷnote:Cf. prev. n.
^ˣnote:Although in the case of proper walls it is not necessary for them to be expressly made for the sukkah, imaginary ones whose legal existence depends on a principle which is in itself a relaxation of the law cannot be regarded as valid by allowing a further relaxation of the law.
^ʸnote:I.e., did he, by his comparison, intend to forbid the use of the courtyard on the same Sabbath as it would presumably be forbidden on future Sabbaths?
^ᶻnote:To permit its use on future ‘Sabbaths as it was presumably permitted on the same Sabbath?
^ᵃᵃnote:MS.M., ‘Ashi. Bah inserts, ‘in the name of’ Rab’.
^ᵃᵇnote:Supra 46b, 81b, q.v. notes.
^ᵃᶜnote:Supra 81b.
^ᵃᵈnote:Loc. cit. q.v. notes. Now, since R. Judah in our Mishnah deals with a question concerning partitions, how, in view of the reply Rab Judah gave to R. Hana, could it be maintained that Samuel pronounced the halachah here to be in agreement with R. Judah's ruling?
^ᵃᵉnote:That the halachah agrees with12. R. Judah.
^ᵃᶠnote:Lit., ‘here’.
^ᵃᵍnote:The movement of objects from a karmelith into another domain or from the latter into the former is only Rabbinically forbidden. As no Pentateuchal law would he infringed, even if an object were carried from the courtyard into the karmelith or vice versa, Samuel adopted the lenient rule of R. Judah in a case where the courtyard was a permitted domain when the Sabbath began.
^ᵃʰnote:That in the case of partitions the halachah is in agreement with R. Judah.
^ᵃⁱnote:Where (cf. supra n. 9) a Pentateuchal law might be infringed.
^ᵃʲnote:Situated on opposite sides of a public domain the road passing under the floor of the upper room.
^ᵃᵏnote:Lit., ‘bridges that have a thoroughfare (beneath them)’.
^ᵃˡnote:Because the edges above are deemed to descend to form walls encasing the space below.
^ᵃᵐnote:Since it has walls on two sides and two walls are Pentateuchally sufficient, v. Gemara.
^ᵃⁿnote:For his ruling in the first clause of our Mishnah.
^ᵃᵒnote:Lit., ‘because he holds the opinion’.
^ᵃᵖnote:The public domain and the viaduct have at least two walls on opposite sides.
^ᵃᵠnote:Sc. the floor of the upper room or the superstructure of the viaduct.
^ᵃʳnote:Supra 6a q.v. notes. Now this distinctly proves that Pentateuchally two walls are sufficient. How then could Rabbah maintain that this must not be presumed to be R. Judah's reason?
^ᵃˢnote:The one just cited.
^ᵃᵗnote:Lit., ‘yes’.
^ᵃᵘnote:The ruling in the first clause of our Mishnah.
^ᵃᵛnote:R. Judah's.
^ᵃʷnote:For his first ruling.
^ᵃˣnote:I.e., even where there were no edges that could be deemed to descend (cf. Rashi's second interpretation).
^ᵃʸnote:Lit., , ‘because he holds the opinion’.
^ᵃᶻnote:Seeing that the ruling that follows is based on the same reason.
^ᵇᵃnote:None whatever. Hence the support for Rabbah's explanation.
^ᵇᵇnote:Lit., ‘you hear from it’.
^ᵇᶜnote:On the Sabbath, in a held where they are exposed to dogs or to any other misuse.
^ᵇᵈnote:To town, into a safe place.
^ᵇᵉnote:One on his head and one on his arm in the same manner as they are worn on weekdays.
^ᵇᶠnote:One pair on the hand and one pair on the arm.
^ᵇᵍnote:Sc. tefillin that show marks of wear or that have a proper knot, in which case there can be no doubt that they were proper tefillin.
^ᵇʰnote:Which may be assumed to be mere amulets.
^ᵇⁱnote:Sc. he is under no obligation to pick them up and to carry them to a place of safety.
^ᵇʲnote:Proper tefillin.
^ᵇᵏnote:This is explained in the Gemara infra.

²IN A TIME OF DANGER, HOWEVER, HE SHALL COVER THEM AND PROCEED ON HIS WAY. R. SIMEON RULED: HE SHALL. PASS THEM TO HIS FELLOW AND HIS FELLOW SHALL PASS THEM TO HIS FELLOW, AND SO ON, UNTIL THE OUTERMOST COURTYARD IS REACHED. THE SAME PROCEDURE IS TO BE FOLLOWED IN THE CASE OF A CHILD OF HIS. HE PASSES HIM TO HIS FELLOW AND HIS FELLOW PASSES HIM TO HIS FELLOW, AND SO ON, EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE AS MANY AS A HUNDRED MEN. R. JUDAH RULED: A MAN MAY PASS A JAR TO HIS FELLOW AND HIS FELLOW MAY PASS IT TO HIS FELLOW EVEN BEYOND THE SABBATH LIMIT. THEY, HOWEVER, SAID TO HIM: THIS MUST NOT BE MOVED FURTHER THAN THE FEET OF ITS OWNER. GEMARA. Only ONE PAIR AT A TIME, but not more. Must it then be assumed that we learned here an anonymous Mishnah that is not in agreement with R. Meir? For if it were to be maintained that it was in agreement with R. Meir [the objection would arise:] Did he not rule that a man may put on all the clothes that he can put on and he may wrap himself in all things that he can wrap round himself? For we learned: And thither he may carry out all the utensils he is in the habit of using, and he may put on all the clothes that he is able to put on and he may wrap himself in all things that he can wrap round himself.’ But whence the proof that that anonymous Mishnah represents the view of R. Meir? — Since in connection therewith it was stated: ‘He may put on clothes and carry them out, and there undress himself, and then he may again put on clothes and carry them out and undress himself, and so on, even all day long; so R. Meir’. Raba replied: It may be said to be in agreement even with R. Meir, for there the Rabbis have allowed a procedure similar to one's habit of dressing on a weekday and here also they have allowed a procedure similar to one's way of wearing tefillin on a weekday. There, where on a weekday a man can wear as many clothes as he desires the Rabbis have permitted him to do so also for the purpose of saving; but here, where even on a weekday a man may wear only one pair but no more he was for the purpose of saving also permitted one pair only but no more. R. GAMALIEL RULED: TWO PAIRS AT A TIME. What is the view he upholds: If he holds that Sabbath is a time for wearing tefillin, a man should be permitted only one pair but no more; and if he holds that Sabbath is not a time for tefillin, but that for the purpose of saving them the Rabbis have permitted him to wear them in the manner of a raiment why should he not be permitted to wear even more than one pair? — The fact is that he holds that Sabbath is not a time for the wearing of tefillin, but when the Rabbis have permitted to wear them in the manner of a raiment for the purpose of saving they limited that to the spot prescribed for the position of the tefillin. If so, should not one pair only be allowed but not more? — R. Samuel son of R. Isaac replied: There is room enough on the head for laying two tefillin. This is a satisfactory explanation as regards those of the head; what explanations however, can be given in respect of those of the hand? — The same as that which R. Huna gave, for R. Huna explained: Sometimes a man comes from the field with his bundle on his head when he removes them from his head and binds them on his arm. It might still be contended, that R. Huna only intended that they should not be treated with disrespect; did he, however, say that it was the proper [manner of wearing them] so. — The explanation rather is this: As R. Samuel son of R. Isaac stated: ‘There is room enough on the head for laying two tefillin’ so we may here also submit: There is room enough on the hand for laying two tefillin. It was taught at the school of Manasseh: Upon thy hand, refers to the biceps muscle: between thine eyes, refers to the vertex. Where is this? — At the school of R. Jannai it was stated: on the place where a child's brain pulsates. Must it be assumed that they differ on the principle of R. Samuel son of R. Isaac, the first Tanna disagreeing with the view of R. Samuel son of R. Isaac while R. Gamaliel upholds it? No, all may hold the view of R. Samuel son of R. Isaac, but the point at issue between them is whether the Sabbath is a time for tefillin, the first Tanna maintaining that Sabbath is a time for tefillin while R. Gamaliel maintains that Sabbath is no time for tefillin. And if you prefer I might reply that all agree that the Sabbath is a time for tefillin, but here the point at issue between them is whether the performance of commandments requires intention, the first Tanna holding that in order to discharge the duty of a commandment, intention is not necessary while R. Gamaliel holds that intention is necessary.46^ᵇˡ^ᵇᵐ^ᵇⁿ^ᵇᵒ^ᵇᵖ^ᵇᵠ^ᵇʳ^ᵇˢ^ᵇᵗ^ᵇᵘ^ᵇᵛ^ᵇʷ^ᵇˣ^ᵇʸ^ᵇᶻ^ᶜᵃ^ᶜᵇ^ᶜᶜ^ᶜᵈ^ᶜᵉ^ᶜᶠ^ᶜᵍ^ᶜʰ^ᶜⁱ^ᶜʲ^ᶜᵏ^ᶜˡ^ᶜᵐ^ᶜⁿ^ᶜᵒ^ᶜᵖ^ᶜᵠ^ᶜʳ^ᶜˢ^ᶜᵗ^ᶜᵘ^ᶜᵛ^ᶜʷ^ᶜˣ^ᶜʸ^ᶜᶻ^ᵈᵃ^ᵈᵇ^ᵈᶜ^ᵈᵈ^ᵈᵉ

^ᵇˡnote:Sc. in a time of religious persecution when it is dangerous to be seen in the vicinity of ritual objects (v. infra 97a f).
^ᵇᵐnote:Each person carrying the tefillin a lesser distance than four cubits.
^ᵇⁿnote:Of the nearest town; sc. a place of safety.
^ᵇᵒnote:Who was born on the Sabbath in an open field.
^ᵇᵖnote:Cf. supra n. 11 mut. mut.
^ᵇᵠnote:The Rabbis who, disagreed with him.
^ᵇʳnote:Sc. beyond his Sabbath limit.
^ᵇˢnote:May be carried in.
^ᵇᵗnote:When saving from a fire on the Sabbath.
^ᵇᵘnote:The nearest courtyard beyond the reach of the fire.
^ᵇᵛnote:Shab. 120a.
^ᵇʷnote:Our Mishnah.
^ᵇˣnote:Where a man is engaged in saving clothes from a fire.
^ᵇʸnote:Lit., ‘made it’.
^ᵇᶻnote:The case of tefillin.
^ᶜᵃnote:On the Sabbath.
^ᶜᵇnote:Sc. the reason why the tefillin may be carried on the Sabbath into a place of safety is that in any case they can be worn on that day as on a weekday.
^ᶜᶜnote:As the commandment of tefillin requires.
^ᶜᵈnote:Since they are not worn in fulfilment of the commandment of tefillin.
^ᶜᵉnote:On the Sabbath.
^ᶜᶠnote:On the head between the eyes above the forehead and on the arm on the biceps muscle.
^ᶜᵍnote:Many pairs of tefillin cannot obviously be accommodated thereon.
^ᶜʰnote:That the position is limited.
^ᶜⁱnote:Lit., ‘yes’. Cur. edd. ‘also’ is deleted by Bah.
^ᶜʲnote:Why then did R. Gamaliel allow two pairs at a time?
^ᶜᵏnote:Not all the hand surely is a suitable place for the tefillin. Why then were two tefillin allowed?
^ᶜˡnote:As a mark of respect for the tefillin.
^ᶜᵐnote:So that they be not crushed by the bundle.
^ᶜⁿnote:As in this manner one would on a weekday wear two tefillin on his arm, a similar number was also allowed on the Sabbath for the purposes of saving.
^ᶜᵒnote:I.e., the wearing of two tefillin on one's arm.
^ᶜᵖnote:As he did not say this, the question arises again: Why did R. Gamaliel allow two tefillin on the arm?
^ᶜᵠnote:Lit., ‘but’.
^ᶜʳnote:Deut. VI, 8.
^ᶜˢnote:Or ‘is soft’.
^ᶜᵗnote:R. Gamaliel and the first Tanna in our Mishnah.
^ᶜᵘnote:Lit., ‘he has not
^ᶜᵛnote:Hence he allows only one pair at a time.
^ᶜʷnote:Who allows two pairs.
^ᶜˣnote:R. Gamaliel and the first Tanna in our Mishnah.
^ᶜʸnote:Cf. Supra p. 660, n. 10. As the commandment is performed by the wearing of one pair, only one pair at a time may be worn.
^ᶜᶻnote:And the permissibility of carrying them into a place of safety is based on their suitability as ornaments. Hence his ruling that as ornaments two pairs at a time may also be worn.
^ᵈᵃnote:And also, that tefillin may be regarded as an ornament that may be worn on the Sabbath in a public domain.
^ᵈᵇnote:This is the reading according to MS.M. and Rashi's second interpretation. Cur. edd. ‘is necessary’.
^ᵈᶜnote:If, therefore, a man puts on tefillin he performs the commandment ipso facto. Consequently he may wear only one pair at a time. For, should he wear more than one pair, whatever his intention, he would be transgressing the prohibition against adding to the commandments (v. infra n. 13).
^ᵈᵈnote:So with MS.M. and Rashi's second interpretation. Cur. edd., ‘is not’.
^ᵈᵉnote:Hence it is possible to wear two pairs of tefillin as ornaments (cf. Supra n. 8) without transgressing the prohibition against ‘adding to the commandments’ (cf supra n. 10).