Eruvin 100b (ק:) — the Talmud in English

Rather,

because he is actively committing a transgression

by refraining from giving the four gifts. The prohibition of bal tigra, as well as the nullification of the mitzva of the four gifts, occurs on its own.

But here, since he is actively committing a transgression

by continuing to sit on the tree, which is considered using the tree,

he too should descend.

And although descending also constitutes an active transgression, nevertheless, it is preferable to violate a prohibition once rather than continue sitting on the tree, thereby violating the prohibition against using it every moment.

One [beraita] teaches: Both a moist tree and a dry tree

are prohibited to use.

And another [beraita] teaches: When are these matters stated

—that it is prohibited to use it?

With regard to a

moist tree

.

But with regard to a

dry tree,

it is permitted.

Since, because it is dry, it is not considered attached to the ground at all, there is no reason to decree that one might come to detach a branch on Shabbat.

Rav Yehuda said: This is not difficult

—the contradiction between the beraitot.

Here—

where its trunk regenerates

—when a new tree grows in place of the tree that is drying out, it is not considered a dry tree, and it is prohibited to use it.

Here—

where its trunk does not regenerate

—when no other tree has grown in its place, it is considered a dry tree and it is permitted to use it.

And we raise a difficulty: Is a tree whose

trunk regenerates really called

“dry”

by you?

That is the natural state of this tree, and it is not due to drying out.

Rather,

explain it as follows:

This is not difficult.

Here, during the summer,

when it is evident to all that it is a dry tree, since it does not produce leaves like other trees, there is no concern that people will mistakenly think it is a moist tree. Therefore, it is permitted to use it.

Here, during the rainy season,

when there is no difference between a moist tree and a dry one, as neither produces leaves. Therefore, it is prohibited to use even a dry tree, due to the appearance of impropriety, lest people think that it is moist.

And we object:

During the summer, the fruit will fall!

As when he ascends and descends the tree, he causes fruits that remained from the previous year to fall!?

For although the tree is dry and there is no prohibition of detaching with regard to it, nevertheless it is prohibited to detach from it, by rabbinic decree, lest one do so with a moist tree.

For only regarding the prohibition against using the tree—which itself is a decree lest one detach a branch—do we not decree that a dry tree is prohibited due to a moist one, as that would be a decree safeguarding against a decree. But the detaching itself must be prohibited even with a dry tree, as a decree safeguarding against detaching from a moist tree. Rashi.

And we answer: With what are we dealing here?

With a case where there is no fruit

on the tree.

And we object:

But he will cause branches to fall,

as he ascends and descends!?

And we answer:

With a tree whose branches have been stripped,

and all its shoots have fallen from it.

And we object:

Is that so? But Rav once arrived at Aspatya

[a place name], and

prohibited a stripped tree

—ascending it on Shabbat?

And we answer:

Rav

found an unlearned community,

a place whose inhabitants were not learned in Torah and did not know to exercise caution [like an open valley without a guard, where everything is exposed],

and he made a fence there

by prohibiting a stripped tree, so that they would not come to be lenient with regard to other trees; this was not the prohibition itself.

Rami bar Abba said that Rav Asi said: It is prohibited for a person to walk on grass on Shabbat.

Because it is stated: “And one who hastens with his feet is a sinner”,

the verse teaches that there can be walking that entails sin.

This walking, too, entails sin, as he detaches grass while walking.

One [beraita] teaches: It is permitted to walk on grass

on Shabbat.

And another [beraita] teaches: It is prohibited

to walk on grass on Shabbat.

And

this is not difficult

—the contradiction between the beraitot.

This one is referring to moist grass!

It is prohibited to walk on moist grass, because one detaches it.

That one is referring to dry grass!

There is no prohibition of detaching dry grass, as it is considered already detached.

And if you wish, say instead: Both are referring to moist grass.

And this is not difficult:

Here, during the summer,

when there are seeds in the stalks, and by walking he causes the seeds to fall from the stalks; therefore, it is prohibited to walk on them.

Here, during the rainy season,

when there are no seeds inside the stalks and he does not cause them to fall; therefore, it is permitted to walk on them.

And if you wish, say instead: Both are during the summer, and this is not difficult:

This one is where he is wearing shoes,

in which case he is permitted to walk on grass.

That one is where he is not wearing shoes,

in which case he is prohibited to walk barefoot, because the grass becomes caught between his toes and is detached.

And if you wish, say instead: Both are where he is wearing shoes.

And this is not difficult:

This one is where his shoes have protrusions,

with a bend beneath them, so that the grass adheres there and is detached.

That one is where his shoes do not have protrusions,

and there is no concern that the grass will be detached.

And if you wish, say instead: Both are where his shoes have protrusions.

And this is not difficult:

This one is where there are long blades of grass,

which are easily detached; therefore, it is prohibited to walk on them.

That one is where there are no long blades of grass,

as they are not long and are not detached as a result of walking on them.

And we conclude:

And nowadays, when we hold in accordance with Rabbi Shimon,

that an unintentional act is permitted—

all of them are permitted

to walk on grass in every manner, since he does not intend to detach it.

And Rami bar Hama said that Rav Asi said: It is prohibited for a person to force

his

wife to engage in the mitzva,

that is, marital relations.

As it is stated: “And one who hastens with his feet—

is a sinner” [“feet” is an expression referring to marital relations, as it is written concerning Sisera: “Between her legs he bent, fell, lay”].

And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Anyone who forces his wife to engage in the mitzva—

will have children who are unfit.

Rav Ika bar Ḥinnana said: What is the verse

from which we learn this?

As it is written at the beginning of the verse “And one who hastens with his feet is a sinner”—

“Even without knowledge, a soul is not good.”

The children born without the woman’s consent are not good, as her husband hastened with regard to marital relations.

It was taught likewise in a beraita: “Even without knowledge, a soul is not good.”

This

refers to one who forces his wife to engage in the mitzva.

“And one who hastens with his feet is a sinner”—

this refers to one who has relations and repeats them,

thereby causing his wife exertion.

And we object:

Is that so? But Rava said: One who wishes all his children to be male—

should have relations and repeat them,

because after the first act of intercourse the woman becomes aroused, and during the second act she emits seed first, and then she gives birth to a male.

But the beraita states that one who has relations and repeats them is a sinner?

This is not difficult:

Here, with her knowledge,

when she consents, it is desirable to have relations and repeat them.

Here, without her knowledge,

he is called a sinner.

Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Any woman who requests

of

her husband to engage in the mitzva,

that is, marital relations,

will have children the likes of whom were not found even in the generation of Moses!

For in the generation of Moses it is written: “Provide for yourselves distinguished men, wise, understanding, and known to your tribes.” And it is written: “And I took the heads of your tribes, men who were wise and known”; but “understanding men”

—who understand one matter from another—

I did not find

—Moses did not find them.

But with regard to Leah, it is written: “And Leah went out to meet him, and said: You must come to me, for I have surely hired you”,

as she requested Jacob to engage in the mitzva.

And it is written: “And of the children of Issachar, those who had understanding of the times, to know what Israel should do. Their heads were two hundred

and all their brothers followed their word.”

Thus, children who had “understanding”—that is, who were discerning—emerged from Leah [Issachar was born from that act of intercourse].

And we object:

Is that so?

But Rav Yitzḥak bar Avdimi said: Eve was cursed with ten curses.

As it is written: “To the woman He said: I will greatly multiply”—

these are the two additional flows of blood.

1.

One is menstrual blood.

2.

And one is the blood of virginity.

3.

“Your pain”—

this is the pain of raising children.

4.

“And your conception”—

this is the pain of pregnancy,

as pregnant women become ill.

5.

“In pain you shall bear children”—

according to its plain meaning,

that is, the pain of childbirth.

6.

“And your desire shall be for your husband”—

this teaches that a woman longs for her husband

for marital relations

when he is setting out on a journey.

7.

“And he shall rule over you”—

this teaches that a woman makes her request in her heart, whereas a man makes his request verbally,

as he rules himself to express the desire of his heart verbally, while the woman is embarrassed to express it verbally.

And

this is a good quality in women!

That she does not make her request verbally.

But Rabbi Yoḥanan said that it is praise for a woman to request her husband for the mitzva?

And we answer:

When we say

that it is praise for a woman,

it is when she hints to him,

displaying signs of affection before him in order to entice him to engage in the mitzva. This is like Leah, who told Jacob to come to her tent, but did not make the request verbally.

And we inquire: But

these—

seven

curses—

are

seven in total.

Yet earlier we said that Eve was cursed with ten curses?

And we answer:

When Rav Dimi came, he said

three additional curses—

1.

She is wrapped like a mourner,

as she is embarrassed to go out into the street with her hair uncovered.

2.

And she is ostracized from all people,

as it will be explained below.

3.

And she is confined in the house like a prisoner,

as she does not leave her home, since all the honor of a king’s daughter is inward.

And we inquire:

What is meant by “ostracized from all people”?

If you say it is because she is prohibited from seclusion

with men—

He too

—even a man—

is prohibited from seclusion

with women, so what curse is this for women? And we answer:

Rather, it is because she is prohibited to two,

as she cannot marry two men, whereas a man may marry many women.

In a metainita it was taught

that there are three other curses—

1.

She grows hair like Lilith,

like a demon.

2.

And she sits and urinates like an animal,

as she crouches when urinating, like a mule.

3.

And she becomes like a cushion for her husband

during marital relations, when he is above.

But the other

—Rav Dimi, who does not count these—does so because he holds:

These

three—

are praise for her!

The fact that she sits to urinate is modest behavior for her, and it entails no difficulty for her.

Likewise, becoming like a cushion for her husband does not cause her much exertion.

On the contrary, his exertion is greater than hers.

As Rabbi Ḥiyya said: What is the meaning of the verse

in the Book of Job,

“From the beasts of the earth we learn, and from the birds of the heavens we become wise”?

This is its meaning:

“From the beasts”

—they teach us

“from”

[as the Holy One, blessed be He, endowed them with wisdom in order to teach us through their behavior]—

this is the mule, which crouches and urinates.

And we learn modesty from it.

“And from the birds of the heavens we become wise”—

this is the rooster, which conciliates,

as it goes about spreading its wings as a sign of conciliation,

and afterward has relations.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Had the Torah not been given, we would have learned:

modesty from a cat,

which does not relieve itself in the presence of a person and covers its excrement.

And robbery from an ant,

as each one stores food for itself and does not rob from its fellow.

And forbidden sexual relations from a dove,

which mates only with its partner.

We learned in a beraita:

Proper conduct from a rooster—

that it conciliates and afterward has relations.

And what

—how does it

conciliate her?

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: This is what it says to her: “I will buy you a cloak

—I will buy you a long garment—

that will reach your ankles”,

reaching all the way to the ground.

After this,

after he has had relations, he nods and bends his head toward her, and

says to her: “May the crest of that rooster be cut off”,

may my crest be cut off,

if I have the means and do not buy you

—if I have what to buy the garment with and do not buy it for you.