Eruvin 100a (ק.) — the Talmud in English

Because it is a dwelling whose use is for open air",

which is not made for dwelling in permanently, but only for the field guards to take shelter in it.

And any dwelling whose use is for open air —

one may not carry within it more than the area of two se'a,

as it is considered as though it was not enclosed for the purpose of dwelling.

We learned in the Mishna:

whose roots are three handbreadths above the ground

—one may not sit on them.

It was stated: With regard to tree roots that come from above, from three handbreadths to within three,

where, after the roots rose three handbreadths above the ground, they bent down again until they were less than three handbreadths above the ground:

Rabba said: It is permitted to use them.

Rav Sheshet said: It is prohibited to use them.

And we explain their dispute:

Rabba said: It is permitted to use them,

because

anything less than three

handbreadths

from the ground

that is adjacent to the ground

is considered ground,

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

Rav Sheshet said: It is prohibited to use them, since they derive from a forbidden state,

as those very roots had previously been three handbreadths above the ground, before they grew further and bent down; therefore

they are prohibited.

As they are similar to a rocky prominence,

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

In this manner, small roots emerge from the large roots all around.

The large roots extend diagonally until they are more than three handbreadths above the ground, while the small roots grow along the length of the large ones and bend downward.

There are three configurations:

a.

Those that rise upward,

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

they are prohibited

according to everyone.

b.

Those that descend downward,

those that emerge at the lower edges of the large roots, and all of them are less than three handbreadths above the ground —

they are permitted

according to everyone, since they were never prohibited.

c.

Those extending to the sides,

the small roots that emerge from the height of the large roots, which is more than three handbreadths above the ground, and reach down to less than three handbreadths above the ground —

this is the dispute between Rabba and Rav Sheshet.

According to Rabba, it is permitted to use the ends of the roots that are less than three handbreadths above the ground.

Whereas according to Rav Sheshet, it is prohibited, since they had previously been at a height of three handbreadths, and they derive from a forbidden state.

And likewise, in the case of a water channel,

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

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

And according to Rav Sheshet, the measurement is taken from the depth of the channel, where there are three handbreadths. For when the tree was entirely within the channel, it was prohibited; now too, it derives from a forbidden state.

And likewise, in the case of a corner,

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

That date palm

a palm tree

that belonged to Abaye, and grew up through an opening,

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

He came before Rav Yosef, and Rav Yosef permitted it for him,

since above the roof it was not three handbreadths high.

Rav Aḥa bar Taḥlifa

said

to

Abaye:

That he permitted for you —

it was according to Rabba who permitted it for you!

For according to Rav Sheshet it is prohibited, since inside the house its height was three handbreadths, and it derives from a forbidden state.

And we considered this:

Obviously,

it is permitted only according to Rabba; so what is Rav Aḥa bar Taḥlifa teaching us?

And we answer: It was necessary to teach us this, lest you say:

Perhaps even according to Rav Sheshet

it is permitted, because we say:

The 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 what is less than three

handbreadths

adjacent to the roof.

It teaches us

that we do not say so.

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

And we raise an objection to Rabba:

We learned

in the Mishna:

whose roots are three handbreadths above the ground —

one may not sit on them.

What are the circumstances?

If the roots did not bend back,

that is, they did not bend downward to less than three handbreadths above the ground,

it is obvious

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

Rather, is it not

teaching us that

even though the roots bent back,

that they bent down again to less than three handbreadths above the ground, nevertheless it is prohibited? This is difficult for Rabba!

And we answer:

No; actually, the roots did not bend back.

And this teaches us: Even though one side

of the roots

is level with the ground,

where the ground is higher, nevertheless it is prohibited to use even that side. For Rabba concedes that where it is higher than the ground on three sides, it is prohibited even on the fourth side. They disagree only when it is level with the ground on at least two sides [as in the case of a water channel].

The Sages taught: With regard to tree roots that are three handbreadths above the ground, or beneath which there is a cavity three handbreadths deep,

where a cavity formed in the earth beneath the roots —

although one side is level with the ground,

nevertheless, one may not sit on them,

even on the lower side.

For one may not climb a tree, nor hang from a tree, nor lean against a tree

on Shabbat.

And one may not climb a tree before nightfall

on the eve of Shabbat

and sit there for the entire day,

even though he performs no action on Shabbat.

The same applies to a tree and to any animal,

as it is likewise prohibited to use an animal on Shabbat, by rabbinic decree, lest one detach a branch in order to strike it and lead it.

But with regard to a pit, a ditch, a cave, or a wall —

he may climb up and climb down, even if they are one hundred cubits high,

since the reason for the prohibition with regard to a tree and an animal is not exertion, but rather a decree lest one detach a branch, which does not apply to a pit and the like.

One teaching states: If he climbed up

the tree

he may descend

from it on Shabbat.

And one teaching states: It is prohibited to descend,

since on his way down he uses the tree.

And

this is not difficult,

that the teachings appear to contradict one another:

Here,

when he climbed up

before nightfall,

and Shabbat commenced while he was there. In that case, we do not penalize him, since he did not commit a prohibition by climbing up, and he may descend.

Here,

when he climbed up

after nightfall,

as we penalize him because he climbed up in violation of the prohibition, and he may not descend.

And if you wish, say: Both this and that

refer to when he climbed up

after nightfall.

And this is not difficult:

Here,

when he climbed up

unwittingly.

Here,

when he climbed up

intentionally,

as we penalize him only when he acted intentionally, but not when he acted unwittingly.

And if you wish, say: Both this and that refer to when he acted unwittingly.

And here, the teachings disagree

with regard to whether one penalizes an unwitting transgression on account of an intentional one

—these beraitot.

One Sage holds: We penalize

even an unwitting transgression, on account of an intentional one.

And one Sage holds: We do not penalize

an unwitting transgression on account of an intentional one.

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: It is subject to a dispute between tanna’im!

We find a dispute between tanna’im from which it is possible to infer that they also disagree in our matter, whether one may descend from the tree on Shabbat.

As we learned in tractate Zevaḥim:

a. The blood of offerings

whose blood is presented in one placement

on the altar, such as a firstborn offering, whose blood is sprinkled only once on the wall of the altar,

that became mixed

with

the blood of those

presented

in

one placement,

such as the blood of another firstborn offering.

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

they shall be presented in one placement

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

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

b. If the blood of those whose blood requires

four placements,

such as the blood of a sin-offering, which is placed with the finger on the four corners of the altar,

with blood requiring four placements,

the blood of another sin-offering —

they shall be presented with four placements.

c. And if blood requiring

four placements became mixed with blood presented

in one placement,

in one placement,

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

Rabbi Eliezer says: They shall be presented with four placements,

even though by sprinkling the blood of the firstborn offering in four placements he violates the prohibition of adding to the mitzvot.

Because the positive mitzva of presenting the four placements of the blood of the sin-offering comes and overrides the prohibition of adding to the mitzvot.”

Rabbi Yehoshua says: They shall be presented in one placement

alone! Since after the fact one fulfills his obligation even with a sin-offering presented in one placement, as we hold: “All blood placed on the outer altar, if he placed it in one placement, effected atonement.”

Therefore, here too he should do so even initially, and he should not make four placements, in order not to violate the prohibition against adding to the mitzvot.

Rabbi Eliezer said

to Rabbi Yehoshua: How does he make only one placement? Although he fulfills his obligation after the fact, he has nevertheless failed to perform the mitzva of making four placements. If so,

does he not violate the prohibition against subtracting?!

Rabbi Yehoshua said

to Rabbi Eliezer: According to your statement, how does he make four placements from the blood of the firstborn offering, when

does he not violate the prohibition against adding?!

He said

to

him, Rabbi Eliezer: They said

that making four placements instead of one constitutes adding to the mitzvot only

when it is

blood

by

itself,

alone,

and not when it is mixed, and he is fulfilling a mitzva with the other blood!

Rabbi Yehoshua said

to Rabbi Eliezer:

The prohibition against subtracting was stated only when it is alone,

and not when it is mixed, and he does not present from it because of the prohibition against presenting the other blood!

Rabbi Yehoshua further said

to explain why it is preferable to refrain from making four placements:

When you made

four placements,

you violated the prohibition against adding

by presenting the blood of the firstborn offering,

and you performed an action with your hands.

Whereas

when you did not make

the placements, and refrained from fulfilling the mitzva of making four placements with the blood of the sin-offering,

you violated the prohibition against subtracting, but you performed no action with your hands!

Therefore, refraining from action is preferable.

And Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, concludes that this can be applied to our matter:

According to Rabbi Eliezer, who said there: Take positive action

to fulfill the mitzva

is preferable

to refraining, despite the fact that performing the mitzva entails an aspect of the prohibition against adding —

here too, he should descend

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

And although the descent too constitutes use of the tree, nevertheless it is preferable to descend and fulfill a mitzva through positive action rather than to transgress through passive inaction.

According to Rabbi Yehoshua, who said there: Refraining from action is preferable —

here too, he should not descend,

in order not to violate the prohibition against using the tree while descending.

And we reject this:

Perhaps it is not so!

For the cases are not comparable.

Rabbi Eliezer said there

that

taking positive action is preferable only because he performs a mitzva,

the mitzva of making four placements.

But here, since he does not perform a mitzva

by descending from the tree, but merely thereby withdraws from the transgression,

here too, he should not descend.

One may not withdraw from a transgression by performing another transgression.

Alternatively,

we can reject it:

Rabbi Yehoshua said there

that

refraining from action is preferable,