Eruvin 104a (קד.) — the Talmud in English

But when it is not in the place of the garments,

where there is no deficiency due to interposition, but only a deficiency due to an excess of garments, only garments that have an area of

three by three

fingerbreadths

constitute an interposition

[that is, they are considered an excess of garments].

But garments that are

less than three

by three fingerbreadths—

do not constitute an interposition,

even if the garment is significant, such as a small tzitzit pouch.

And this is,

and these words of Rabbi Yohanan are identical to what

that

said

Rava in the name of Rav Hisda.

And this is the novel point of the latter formulation, unlike the first formulation, which holds that Rava in the name of Rav Hisda and Rabbi Yohanan disagree. Rather, according to the latter formulation, they both said the same thing!

And we raise a question concerning this: It is obvious to us that Rabbi Yohanan disagrees with Rav Yehuda, son of Rabbi Hiyya, concerning the law of a small tzitzit pouch.

For Rabbi Yohanan came to disagree with him and say that even a small tzitzit pouch does not constitute an excess of garments, since it is not three by three.

Rather, this is what we ask:

Shall we say,

does what Rava said in the name of Rav Hisda—that when it is not in the place of the garments, only three by three constitutes an interposition [that is, it invalidates the service because of an excess of garments]—also include the ruling that a small tzitzit pouch does not constitute an interposition, and consequently

he disagrees

with

Rav Yehuda, son of Rabbi Hiyya?

Or perhaps, concerning a small tzitzit pouch, he agrees with Rav Yehuda, son of Rabbi Hiyya, that because of its importance it does constitute an interposition?

And we resolve the question: Rav Hisda agrees with Rav Yehuda, son of Rabbi Hiyya, in this matter.

For

a small tzitzit pouch is different—

because it is significant!

And it constitutes an excess of garments even when it is less than three by three.

And we challenge this:

But according to Rabbi Yohanan,

who holds that anything that is not three by three, even a small tzitzit pouch, is not considered an excess of garments—

instead of teaching us

that the tanna of our Mishna wraps a

reed mat, let him teach us

a greater novelty: that even a

small tzitzit pouch

is not called an excess of garments?

And we answer:

He teaches us something incidentally: that a reed mat has healing properties!

A reed mat possesses a healing quality, and nevertheless it is permitted to place it on the wound in the Temple.

And the tanna preferred to teach us a novel law concerning the laws of Shabbat, since our tractate deals with the laws of Shabbat.

Mishna:

They crush

and scatter

salt on the ramp

of the altar on Shabbat

so that the priests would not slip

on it.

This is because the ramp was smooth, without steps, and when rain fell upon it, it became slippery. But in the rest of the country it was prohibited to do so.

And they draw

water

from the Well of the Exile and from the Great Well,

two water wells known by these names, which were in the Chamber of the Courtyard,

with a pulley,

by which the bucket was raised with ropes,

on Shabbat.

But in the rest of the country it was prohibited.

And

they would draw

from the Cold Well,

a well in the rest of the country, from which it was permitted to draw

on a Festival

only, but not on Shabbat. All the statements of the Mishna will be explained in the Gemara.

Gemara:

Rav Ika of Pashruniya

a place-name

posed a contradiction to Rava:

We learned: They crush salt on the ramp so that they would not slip.

And it implies:

In the Temple, yes.

But

in the rest of the country, no.

And we raise a contradiction:

It was taught in a beraita:

If a courtyard was damaged by rainwater, one

brings straw and spreads it

smoothly

over it.

Thus, even in the rest of the country it is permitted to spread straw, and the same should apply to salt?

And we answer:

Straw is different, as one does not set it aside there

permanently.

For he does not intend that it remain there permanently; rather, he intends to remove it afterward, to use it for his animal or to make mortar.

But salt, presumably, he sets aside there, since once it has been trampled underfoot it is no longer fit for eating. Thus, by spreading it he levels the depressions in the courtyard, and this is prohibited on account of building.

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

that they scatter on the ramp—

what are the circumstances?

If he sets it aside

there on the ramp,

he is adding to the building

of the altar, and it is prohibited to add to the dimensions of the altar even on a weekday [as

it is written,

what King David said to his son Solomon:

“Everything was in writing from the hand of the Lord, which 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 set it aside

there on the ramp,

it constitutes an interposition,

for the salt interposes between the priests’ feet and the ramp, and the service of carrying the offering up the ramp is thereby invalidated?

And we answer: He never sets the salt aside there, because he intends to use the salt after it has been trampled, for salting the hides of the offerings. And nevertheless it does not constitute an interposition between the priests’ feet and the ramp. For they would scatter the salt only

during

the time of

carrying the limbs

of the offering

up the ramp, which is not a service!

For the principal atonement of the offering depends on the sprinkling of its blood on the altar. Although the burning of the limbs itself is a service, carrying them to the altar is not a service, and an interposition does not invalidate it.

And we challenge this:

But

carrying the limbs up 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 expression, “and he shall bring it near”—

this is carrying the limbs up the ramp!

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

Rather, say that they would scatter the salt

at the time of

carrying

the

wood to the pyre

on the altar,

which is not a service.

Rava expounded: If a courtyard was damaged by rainwater, one

brings straw and spreads it over it,

scattering straw over it and treading on 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 or in a large basket

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

Rather,

he scatters the straw he brings

from the bottom of the basket,

where the basket has torn and only its bottom remains, which is a change from the weekday manner.

But you permitted spreading it in any manner?

Rava then appointed an interpreter for himself

to present the statement in his name,

and expounded: The statements I told you were mistaken!

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

We learned in the Mishna:

They draw water from the Well of the Exile.

Ulla happened to come to the house of Rav Menashe.

A certain man came

on Shabbat

and struck the door,

knocking on the door with his fist and producing a sound.

Ulla said

:

Who is this

man?!

Let his body be profaned!

Let his body be profaned,

for he is profaning it

by profaning

Shabbat!

by producing a sound.

Rabba said to him: They prohibited only

producing

a musical sound!

A sound that resembles music—that is, with melody and pleasantness—and not the sound of knocking on a door.

Abaye raised an objection to him:

It was taught in a beraita:

One may pour wine through a double-spouted tube,

it is permitted to transfer wine from one barrel to another by means of two tubes, each cut diagonally [“double-spouted” means two openings], placing the slanted edge of one against the slanted edge of the other, inserting one tube into the full barrel and sucking with his mouth at the end of the other tube until the wine reaches him, after which the wine flows on its own.

And one may drip water from a meyarek,

a metal vessel with a narrow opening, perforated below with small holes. One fills it with water and closes its upper opening.

As long as the vessel is closed above, the water inside it does not emerge through the holes below.

When one wishes to produce a sound, he opens the upper opening of the vessel and places a metal vessel beneath it; the water emerges below drop by drop and produces a sound. It is permitted to do so

for the

purpose of

a sick person on Shabbat,

as the text proceeds to explain.

And we infer:

For a sick person, yes.

For a healthy person, no.

What are the circumstances?

What does

“not” mean?

That the sick person

is sleeping,

and they

wish to awaken him,

and they permitted doing so only for a sick person, because they are concerned that awakening him by hand might frighten him.

These sounds, intended to awaken a person from sleep, are not sounds produced with melody and pleasantness, since, on the contrary, sounds heard with melody and pleasantness put one to sleep.

Nevertheless, it is prohibited to produce them for a healthy person. This is difficult for Rabba, who said that they prohibited only a musical sound.

And we answer:

No,

this is not referring to awakening the sick person under discussion.

Rather, it is referring to a sick person

who is awake,

awake,

and they wish to put him to sleep,

and they wish to make him sleep,

because it is understood as the sound of humming,

as the drops produce a pleasant sound that induces sleep.

Therefore, it is prohibited to do so for a healthy person. But it is permitted to produce a sound that is not musical 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

pumpkins from an animal—

guards them in his usual manner, on Shabbat.

Provided that he does not clap,

that is, he does not strike his hands together,

nor beat,

he does not strike his chest with his hands,

nor dance

with his feet

as they

the guards

do on a weekday,

for they produce a sound in order to frighten away the birds.

And we inquire concerning this:

What is the reason

that it is prohibited?

Is it not

because

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

even when it is not a musical sound? This is difficult for Rabba!

And we answer:

Rav Aḥa bar Yaakov said:

The reason is not the production of a sound, but rather

a decree lest he take a stone,

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

And we challenge Rabba:

But 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 prohibited

on Shabbat.

What is the reason

that it is prohibited?

Is it not

because

they produce a sound?

And every production of a sound is prohibited.

This is difficult for Rabba!

And we answer:

No.

Rather, it is prohibited because

perhaps they will come to level depressions,

to straighten the ground so that they can roll the nuts on it. And this is prohibited on account of building.

There is proof that this is the reason for the prohibition:

For if you do not say so,

the following will be difficult:

That which Rav Yehuda said: Women play with apples

[as with nuts]

is prohibited

on Shabbat.

But

there—

what production of a sound is there?

Rather,

it must be that the reason is

perhaps they will come to level depressions.

We further challenge Rabba:

We learned

in our Mishna:

They draw water from the Well of the Exile and from the Great Well with a pulley on Shabbat.

And we infer:

In the Temple, yes.

In the rest of the country, no.

What is the reason

that it is prohibited to draw water with a pulley in the rest of the country?

Is it not because it produces a sound,

since the pulley produces a sound,

and it is prohibited,

even though it is not a musical sound!

And we answer:

No.

Rather, the reason is

a decree lest,

because the water is drawn by means of a pulley without exertion, he

fill

water from the well and water

his garden or his ruin.

And watering plants on Shabbat is prohibited on account of sowing.

Ameimar permitted drawing

water from the well

with a pulley

with a pulley

in Meḥoza,

the name of a city.

He said: Why did the Sages decree

not to draw water with a pulley—

lest he fill water for his garden or his ruin!

But

here,

in Meḥoza,

there is neither a garden nor a ruin!

Therefore, there is no concern at all.