Eruvin 100a — the Talmud in English

Because it is a dwelling whose use is for “air,”

which is not made for dwelling in it permanently, but only so that the field-watchmen may shelter in it.

And every dwelling whose use is for air —

one may not carry in it more than two seah,

for it is as though it had not been enclosed for the sake of a dwelling.

We learned in the Mishna:

its roots are three handbreadths high above the ground —

three handbreadths: one may not sit upon them.

It was stated: Tree roots that come from above, from three handbreadths to within three,

meaning that after the roots rose three handbreadths from the ground, they bent back down until below three handbreadths:

Rabba said: It is permitted to use them.

Rav Sheshet said: It is forbidden to use them.

And we explain their dispute:

Rabba said: It is permitted to use them,

because

anything less than three

handbreadths

of the ground

that is adjacent to the ground —

is ground,

it is like the ground, and therefore it is permitted to use them.

Rav Sheshet said: It is forbidden to use them, for since they come by means of a prohibition,

meaning that those very roots had previously been three handbreadths high, before they grew further and bent down, therefore

they are forbidden.

For they resemble a rocky eminence,

roots that resemble a tooth of rock, sloping on all its sides.

Thus small roots emerge from the large roots all around.

The large ones proceed diagonally until above three handbreadths, and the small ones grow along the length of the large ones and bend downward.

And there are three forms —

A.

those that rise upward,

those that emerge at the height of the large roots, and all of them are above three handbreadths —

they are forbidden

according to everyone.

B.

those that descend below,

those that emerge at the lower parts of the large roots, and all of them are below three handbreadths —

they are permitted

according to everyone, for they had never been forbidden.

C.

to the sides,

the small roots that emerge from the height of the large ones, which is above three handbreadths, and reach down to below three handbreadths —

it is the dispute of Rabba and Rav Sheshet.

According to Rabba, it is permitted to use the ends of the roots that are below three handbreadths.

But according to Rav Sheshet it is forbidden, since they had previously been at a height of three handbreadths, and they come by means of a prohibition.

And likewise a tree beside a canal,

a tree that emerges from a narrow water channel, is attached to the wall of the channel on both sides, and rises above the banks of the channel by less than three handbreadths — this too depends on the dispute of Rabba and Rav Sheshet.

According to Rabba, one measures the height from the edge of the channel, and it is permitted to use the tree.

And according to Rav Sheshet, one measures from the depth of the channel, where there are three handbreadths. For when the tree was entirely within the channel, it was forbidden; now too, it comes by means of a prohibition.

And likewise in a corner,

a tree growing in the corner of the courtyard walls, concealed on three of its sides by the wall, with only one side visible. And it grows above the wall by less than three handbreadths — this too depends on the dispute of Rabba and Rav Sheshet. According to Rabba, one measures above the wall, and according to Rav Sheshet one measures from the ground, since before it reached above the wall its height was three handbreadths, and it comes by means of a prohibition.

That palm tree

a palm tree

that belonged to Abaye, and rose through an opening,

grew inside the house and rose through the skylight to above the roof by less than three handbreadths.

He came before Rav Yosef, and he permitted it to him,

since above the roof it was not three handbreadths high.

He said

to him

Rav Aḥa bar Taḥlifa

to Abaye:

that he permitted it to you —

he permitted it to you in accordance with Rabba!

For according to Rav Sheshet it is forbidden, since inside the house its height was three handbreadths, and it comes by means of a prohibition.

And we raise an objection concerning this:

It is obvious

that it is permitted only according to Rabba; and what does Rav Aḥa bar Taḥlifa teach us?

And we answer: It was necessary to teach us:

You might have said that even according to Rav Sheshet

it is permitted, for we say

a house is considered as though it were filled!

The entire house is as though it were sealed and is considered like the thickness of the ground,

and he may use [the tree] at less than three

handbreadths

adjacent to the roof.

It teaches us

that we do not say this.

Rather, we also take into account what is inside the house; therefore, according to Rav Sheshet it is forbidden.

And we challenge Rabba:

We learned

in the Mishna:

its roots are three handbreadths high above the ground —

one may not sit upon them.

What are the circumstances?

If they did not bend back,

meaning that the roots did not bend down below three handbreadths —

it is obvious

that it is forbidden. For this is a complete tree, and we already learned in tractate Beitza that it is forbidden to use a tree!?

Rather, is it not

coming to teach us that

although they bent back,

meaning that they returned and bent down below three handbreadths, even so it is forbidden. And this is difficult for Rabba!

And we answer:

No! Actually, they did not bend back.

And this teaches us: Although one side

of the roots

is level with the ground,

where the ground there is higher, nevertheless it is forbidden to use even that side. For Rabba concedes that where it is high above the ground on three sides, it is forbidden even on the fourth side. They disagreed only when on at least two sides it is level with the ground [such as beside a canal].

The Sages taught: The roots of a tree that are three handbreadths high above the ground, or that have a three-handbreadth space beneath them,

meaning that a space was formed in the earth beneath the roots —

although one side is level with the ground,

one may nevertheless not sit upon them,

even on the lower side.

For one may not climb a tree, hang upon a tree, or lean upon a tree

on Shabbat.

And he may not climb a tree while it is still day

on the eve of Shabbat

and sit there the entire day,

even though he performs no action on Shabbat.

Both a tree and any animal,

for it is likewise forbidden to use an animal on Shabbat. This is a decree lest one pluck a branch in order to strike it and lead it.

But a pit, a ditch, a cave, or a wall —

he climbs up and climbs down, even if they are one hundred cubits,

for the reason concerning a tree and an animal is not exertion, but a decree lest he pluck a branch, and this does not apply to a pit and the like.

One teaching states: If he climbed

the tree —

it is permitted for him to descend

from it on Shabbat.

And one teaching states: It is forbidden to descend,

for in the course of his descent he uses the tree.

And

This is not difficult:

the contradiction between the baraitot:

Here,

when he climbed

while it was still day,

and the day became sanctified upon him there; in that case we do not penalize him, since he did not perform a prohibition in his climbing, and it is permitted for him to descend.

Here,

when he climbed

after nightfall,

for we penalize him, since he climbed in violation, and it is forbidden for him to descend.

And if you wish, say: Both this and that

are when he climbed

after nightfall.

And it is not difficult:

Here,

when he climbed

unwittingly.

Here,

when he climbed

intentionally,

for only when he acts intentionally do we penalize him, and not when he acts unwittingly.

And if you wish, say: Both this and that are when he climbed unwittingly.

And here, they disagree concerning whether one penalizes an unwitting act on account of an intentional act —

these baraitot disagree

these baraitot.

One Master holds: We penalize

even an unwitting act on account of an intentional act.

And one Master holds: We do not penalize

an unwitting act on account of an intentional act.

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: It is a dispute among tannaim!

We find a dispute among tannaim from which it is possible to learn that they also disagree concerning our matter, whether it is permitted to descend from the tree on Shabbat.

For we learned in tractate Zevaḥim:

A. The blood of the offerings

that are given in one placement

upon the altar, such as a firstborn offering, whose blood is cast only once upon the wall of the altar,

that became mixed

with

with the blood of the

ones that are given

in

in one placement,

such as with the blood of another firstborn offering.

Whether the bloods became mixed together in one cup, or two cups of different bloods became mixed and it is not known to which offering each cup belongs —

they shall be given in one placement

from the mixed blood, and this placement contains the blood of both offerings.

And if two cups became mixed, he shall give one placement from each cup separately.

B. If the blood of those that are given

four placements,

such as a sin-offering, from whose blood one gives with a finger upon the four corners of the altar,

with blood requiring four placements,

with the blood of another sin-offering —

they shall be given in four placements.

C. And if blood that has

four placements

became mixed with blood given

in one placement,

such as the blood of a firstborn offering that became mixed with the blood of a sin-offering —

Rabbi Eliezer says: They shall be given in four placements,

even though he violates “Do not add” by casting the blood of the firstborn offering in four placements.

For the positive commandment of casting the four placements of the blood of the sin-offering comes and overrides the prohibition of “Do not add.”

Rabbi Yehoshua says: They shall be given in one placement

only! Since after the fact he fulfills his obligation even with a sin-offering through one placement. For we hold: “All those given upon the outer altar, if he gave them in one placement, he atoned.”

Therefore, here he should do so even initially, and he should not give four placements, in order not to violate “Do not add.”

Rabbi Eliezer said to

Rabbi Yehoshua: How does he give only one placement? Granted, he fulfills his obligation, but he has omitted the mitzva of giving four placements. If so,

he violates “Do not diminish”!

Rabbi Yehoshua said to

Rabbi Eliezer: How, according to your words, does he give four placements from the blood of the firstborn offering, and

he violates “Do not add”!

He said

to him

Rabbi Eliezer: They said

that “Do not add” applies to giving four in place of one placement only

when it is

blood

by

in its

own,

and not when it is in a mixture, and he fulfills the mitzva through the other blood!

Rabbi Yehoshua said to

Rabbi Eliezer:

“Do not diminish” was said only when it is by itself,

and not when it is in a mixture, and he does not give from it because of the prohibition against giving the other blood!

And Rabbi Yehoshua further said

to explain why it is preferable to refrain from giving four:

When you gave

four —

you violated “Do not add”

by giving the blood of the firstborn offering,

and you performed an action with your hand.

But

when you did not give

and refrained from fulfilling the mitzva of giving four placements with the blood of the sin-offering —

you violated “Do not diminish,” but you performed no action with your hand!

Therefore, remaining passive is preferable.

And Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, concludes that one can learn concerning our matter:

According to Rabbi Eliezer, who said there: “Arise and perform”

a mitzva

is preferable

than refraining, despite the fact that in performing the mitzva there is an aspect of violating “Do not add” —

here too, he should descend

from the tree on Shabbat. For in this descent there is a mitzva, since by remaining seated he uses the tree every moment.

And although the descent too is use, nevertheless it is preferable to descend and fulfill a mitzva through arising and performing, rather than to violate through remaining passive.

According to Rabbi Yehoshua, who said there: “Remaining passive is preferable” —

here too, he should not descend,

so as not to violate the prohibition of use during his descent.

And we reject this:

Perhaps it is not so!

For the matters are not comparable.

Rabbi Eliezer said there only

that

“arise and perform is preferable,” because he performs a mitzva

of giving four placements.

But here, where he does not perform a mitzva

by descending from the tree, but merely withdraws from the violation through this —

here too, he should not descend.

For one may not withdraw from a violation by committing another violation.

Alternatively,

one may reject:

Rabbi Yehoshua said there only

because

remaining passive is preferable,