Eruvin 104a — the Talmud in English

But when it is not in the place of garments,

for there is no deficiency of interposition, but only a deficiency of extra garments, only garments that have the measure of

three by three

fingerbreadths

interpose

[that is, they are considered extra garments].

But garments that are

less than three

by three fingerbreadths—

do not interpose,

even if it was an important garment, such as a small tzaltzul.

And this is,

and these words of Rabbi Yoḥanan agree with that

which

said

Rava said in the name of Rav Ḥisda.

And this is what was renewed in the latter formulation, unlike the first formulation, which holds that Rava in the name of Rav Ḥisda and Rabbi Yoḥanan disagreed. Rather, according to the latter formulation, both of them said the same thing!

And we raised a difficulty concerning it: It is obvious to us that Rabbi Yoḥanan disagrees with Rav Yehuda, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya, concerning the law of a small tzaltzul.

For he came to disagree with him and to say that even a small tzaltzul does not constitute extra garments, since it does not have three by three.

Rather, this is what was uncertain to us:

Shall we say,

whether also what Rava said in the name of Rav Ḥisda, that when it is not in the place of garments only three by three interposes [that is, it disqualifies because of extra garments], includes within this also that a small tzaltzul does not interpose, and consequently

he disagrees with

Rav

Yehuda, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya.

Or perhaps, in the case of a small tzaltzul, he concedes to Rav Yehuda, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya, that because of its importance it interposes?

And we resolve it: In this, Rav Ḥisda concedes to Rav Yehuda, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya.

For

a small tzaltzul is different—

for it is important!

And it constitutes extra garments even when it is less than three by three.

And we challenge:

And according to Rabbi Yoḥanan,

who holds that anything that does not have three by three, even if it is a small tzaltzul, is not considered extra garments—

instead of teaching us

that the tanna of the Mishna teaches that he wraps a bandage around it,

let him teach us

a greater novelty, that even a

small tzaltzul

is not called extra garments?

And we answer:

He teaches us a matter incidentally, that a bandage heals!

For a bandage has a healing property, and nevertheless it is permitted to place it on the wound in the Temple.

And it was preferable for the tanna to teach us a novel law concerning the laws of Shabbat, for this tractate deals with the laws of Shabbat.

Mishna:

They crush and scatter

and distribute

salt upon the ramp

of the altar on Shabbat

so that they should not slip

on it.

For the ramp was smooth, without steps, and when the rains fell upon it, it became slippery. But in the country it was forbidden to do so.

And they fill

water

from the Cistern of the Exile and from the Great Cistern,

two water cisterns, for that was their name, which were in the Chamber of the Courtyard,

with a wheel,

with which they raise the bucket by means of ropes,

on Shabbat.

And in the country it was forbidden.

And

they would fill

from the Cold Well,

one well that was in the country; it was permitted to fill from it

on a Festival

alone, and not on Shabbat. And all the words of the Mishna will be explained in the Gemara.

Gemara:

Rav Ika of Pashronya

a place name

raised an objection to Rava:

We learned: They crush and scatter salt upon the ramp so that they should not slip.

And it implies:

In the Temple, yes.

But

in the country, no.

And we raise a contradiction:

It was taught in a beraita:

A courtyard that was damaged by rainwater—

one brings straw, and spreads it

out

in it.

It follows that even in the country it is permitted to spread straw, and the same is true of salt?

And we answer:

Straw is different, for he does not nullify it

there.

For he does not intend that it remain there forever, but rather he intends to remove it from there afterward, to use it for the needs of his animal or for making mortar.

But salt, ordinarily he nullifies it there, since it is no longer fit for eating after it has been trampled underfoot; and by doing so he levels the hollows in the courtyard, and it is forbidden because of building.

Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: This salt

that they scatter upon the ramp—

what are the circumstances?

If he nullifies it

there, on the ramp, then

he is adding to the building

of the altar, and even on a weekday it is forbidden to add to the dimensions of the altar [for it is

written

that King David said to his son Solomon:

“Everything in writing from the hand of the Lord upon me He made me understand”].

The prophets transmitted to him the entire form of the construction of the Temple and its dimensions, and one may not alter them!

And if he does not stand by it and nullify it

there, on the ramp, then

it constitutes an interposition,

for the salt interposes between the feet of the priests and the ramp, and the service of carrying the offering on the ramp is thereby disqualified?

And we answer: In truth, he does not nullify the salt there, for he intends to use the salt after it has been trodden upon for salting the hides of the offerings. And nevertheless, it does not constitute an interposition between the feet of the priests and the ramp. For they scattered the salt only

at

the time of

carrying the limbs

of the offering

to the ramp, for it is not a service!

For the principal atonement of the offering depends upon the sprinkling of the blood upon the altar. And although the actual burning of the limbs is a service, carrying them to the altar is not a service, and interposition does not disqualify in their case.

And we challenge:

And

the carrying of the limbs to the ramp

is not

a service?

But it is written: “And the priest shall bring all of it near, and burn it upon the altar.”

And the Master said:

This “and he shall bring near”

is the carrying of the limbs to the ramp!

For it must specifically be performed by a priest. And since it is valid only through a priest, learn from it that it is a service! And we conclude:

Rather, say:

that they scattered the salt

at

the time of

carrying wood to the arrangement

that is upon the altar,

for it is not a service.

Rava expounded: A courtyard that was damaged by rainwater—

one brings straw and spreads it in it,

he scatters straw in it and treads upon the straw.

Rav Pappa said to Rava:

But it was taught: When he spreads it—

he does not spread it

in the manner in which he does so on a weekday.

He does not bring the straw

in a basket, nor in a large basket

[a large basket], so that it should not be in the weekday manner.

Rather,

he scatters the straw that he brings

with the bottom of the basket,

for the basket was torn and nothing remained of it but the bottom, which is a change from the weekday manner.

But you permitted spreading it in any manner?

Rava then appointed an interpreter for himself

to have one sage state in his name,

and expounded: The things that I said before you are an error on my part!

However, this is what they said in the name of Rabbi Eliezer: And when he spreads it, he does not spread it in a basket or in a large basket, but with the bottom of a basket.

We learned in the Mishna:

They fill from the Cistern of the Exile.

Ulla happened to come to the house of Rav Menashe.

A certain man came

on Shabbat,

and struck the door,

he knocked on the door with his fist and made a sound.

Ulla said

:

Who is this

man?!

Let his body be profaned!

Let his body be profaned,

for he is profaning it

because he is profaning

Shabbat!

by producing a sound.

Rabba said to him: They prohibited only

producing

a musical sound!

A sound that is heard like music, that is, melodiously and gently, and not the sound of knocking on a door.

Abaye raised an objection to him:

It was taught:

They raise wine through a diophy

it is permitted to transfer wine from one barrel to another by means of two reeds, each cut diagonally [“diophy”—two mouths], joining the slope of one to the slope of the other, inserting one reed into the full barrel and sucking with his mouth at the end of the second reed until the wine reaches him, after which the wine flows on its own.

And they drip with a miyārek,

a metal vessel whose mouth is narrow and whose lower part is perforated with small holes. One fills it with water and closes its upper mouth.

And as long as the vessel is closed at the top, the water inside it does not exit through the holes below.

And when he wishes to make a sound, he opens the upper opening of the vessel and places a metal vessel beneath it, and the water exits below drop by drop, making a sound. And it is permitted to do so

for

the sake of

a sick person on Shabbat,

as he goes on to explain.

And we infer:

For a sick person, yes.

For a healthy person, no.

What are the circumstances?

What,

is it not that

the sick person

is sleeping,

that he is asleep,

and he wishes to awaken

and they wish to awaken him by producing these sounds, and they permitted it only for a sick person, for they are concerned that if they awaken him by hand he may become frightened?

But these sounds, which are intended to awaken a person from his sleep, are not sounds of melody and gentleness, for, on the contrary, sounds heard melodiously and gently put one to sleep.

And nevertheless it is forbidden to produce them for a healthy person. And this is difficult for Rabba, who said that they prohibited only a musical sound.

And we answer:

No,

with regard to awakening the sick person under discussion.

Rather, it is speaking of a sick person

who is awake,

awake,

and he wishes to sleep,

and they wish to put him to sleep,

for it is heard as a murmuring sound,

for the drops are heard as a pleasant sound that induces sleep.

And therefore it is forbidden to do so for a healthy person. But a sound that is not music is permitted to produce on Shabbat even for a healthy person.

He raised an objection to him: It was taught: One who guards his produce from birds and

likewise one who guards his

gourds from an animal—

guards in his usual manner, on Shabbat.

Provided that he does not clap,

that he does not strike palm against palm,

nor beat,

he does not strike his chest with his hands,

nor dance

with his feet

in the manner that they

the watchmen

do on a weekday,

for they make a sound in order to frighten the birds.

And we raised the question:

What is the reason

that it is forbidden?

Is it not

because

he produces a sound, and every production of a sound is forbidden,

even though it is not a musical sound? And this is difficult for Rabba!

And we answer:

Rav Aḥa bar Yaakov said:

The reason is not because of producing a sound, but because of

a decree lest he take a pebble,

a stone, and throw it from his courtyard into the public domain in order to drive away the birds.

And we challenge Rabba:

But rather, what of that which Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: Women who play with nuts,

rolling them so that they knock against one another—

it is forbidden

on Shabbat.

What is the reason

that it is forbidden?

Is it not

because

they are producing a sound?

And every production of a sound is forbidden.

And this is difficult for Rabba!

And we answer:

No.

Rather, it is forbidden because

perhaps he will come to level hollows,

to level the ground in order to roll the nuts upon it. And it is forbidden because of building.

And proof that this is the reason for the prohibition:

For if you do not say so,

there is a difficulty with

that which Rav Yehuda said: Women play with apples

[as with nuts]

it is forbidden

on Shabbat.

But

there—

what production of a sound is there?

Rather,

necessarily, the reason is

perhaps he will come to level hollows.

We further challenge Rabba:

We learned

in our Mishna:

They fill from the Cistern of the Exile and from the Great Cistern with a wheel on Shabbat.

And we infer:

In the Temple, yes.

In the country, no.

What is the reason

that it is forbidden to fill with a wheel in the country?

Is it not because of producing a sound,

for the wheel makes a sound,

and it is forbidden,

even though it is not a musical sound!

And we answer:

No.

Rather, the reason is because of

a decree lest,

since the water is drawn by means of a wheel without exertion,

he will fill

water from the well and water

his garden and his ruin.

And watering plants on Shabbat is forbidden because of sowing.

Ameimar permitted filling

water from the well

with a wheel

with a wheel

in Meḥoza,

the name of a city.

He said: For what reason did the Sages decree

not to fill with a wheel—

lest he fill for his garden and his ruin!

But

here,

in Meḥoza,

there is neither a garden nor a ruin!

And therefore there is no concern at all.