Eruvin 17b — the Talmud in English

And we answer:

It is not necessary—

that which we said, that those killed in war are buried where they were killed,

even though ![](pamud.bmp "

precise column location")

they have buriers [heirs—Rashi], and therefore he is not considered a met mitzva!

[наследники — Раши], поэтому они не считаются met mitzva!

For it was taught: Who is a met mitzva to whom the kohen becomes impure? [Rabbeinu Peretz]

к которому коэну разрешено становиться нечистым? [Рабейну Перец]

Anyone who has no buriers.

But if

he calls and others answer him, this is not a met mitzva!

And we object:

A

re you saying that

a met mitzva acquires its place?!

For it was taught: One who finds a

met mitzva

lying on a public road [a paved road for the passage of many]—

[дороге, по которой проходит множество людей], —

he moves it to the right of the road, or to the left of the road.

If there were before him, on the two sides of the road, two fields: one

fallow field [a field that is not plowed]

[поле, которое не вспахано],

and

one

plowed field [a plowed field], when he moves him from the road—

[поле, которое вспахано], то, когда он переносит его с дороги, —

he moves him to the fallow field.

If there were before him

a plowed field and a sown field [a seeded field]—

[поле, на котором посеяны семена], —

he moves him to the plowed field.

If both of them—

on the two sides of the road—

were plowed fields,

or if they were

both sown,

or if they were

both fallow—

he moves him to whichever direction he wishes!

We see, then, that he does not acquire his place. For if he acquired his place, how could he take him away from the road?

Rav Bibi said: Here,

in the beraita, it is dealing

with

the case where the

dead person was lying across the boundary!

That is to say: he was lying across the width of the road, from the boundary on this side to the boundary on that side, and there was no room for kohanim and those who perform purification to pass there without spreading over him.

And

since permission was given to move him from the boundary

to the sides of the road, in order to clear the way for kohanim and those who perform purification,

he moves him in whichever direction he wishes!

We learned in the Mishna:

And they are exempt

in a camp

from washing the hands.

Abaye said: They taught

that they are exempt in a camp

only

from

the first waters

before the meal,

but the final waters are obligatory!

And even in a camp they are not exempt from them.

Rav Hiyya bar Ashi said: Why did they say that the final waters are obligatory?

Because there is Sodomite salt

in the salt,

which blinds the eyes.

And the Sages said: After all your eating, eat salt. And because of the salt in which he dipped his finger, they instituted the final waters!

Abaye said: And it is found like a grain in a kor

of salt [Sodomite salt is found in only a small amount in the salt, a small grain in a kor of salt].

Rav Aha, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: One who measures salt [a person who measures salt for the porters carrying the salt]—

[человек, отмеряющий соль для носильщиков, перевозящих соль], —

what?

Does he too need to wash his hands, because of the Sodomite salt in the salt?

He said to him

Rav Ashi to Rav Aha, son of Rava:

This is not a question [he certainly needs to wash his hands]! And Rashi’s version reads

[он, несомненно, обязан омыть руки]! А Раши приводит версию

“All the more so.”

We learned in the Mishna:

And

they are exempt in a camp

from demai.

For we learned: They may feed the poor demai, and the military aksanya [Israelite soldiers of the king of Israel who come to wage war against their enemies]

[израильских солдат царя Израиля, пришедших сражаться с его врагами]

demai,

for since it is a rabbinic stringency, regarding these the Sages were lenient.

Rav Huna said: A tanna

in a beraita, in which Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagree:

Beit Shammai say: They may not feed the poor demai, and

not

the

aksanya

demai.

And

Beit Hillel say: They may feed the poor demai, and the aksanya demai.

We learned in the Mishna:

And

they are exempt in a camp

from making an eruv.

The school of Rabbi Yannai said: They taught—

that they exempted in a camp—

only

from making

an eruv hatzerot

whose obligation is only rabbinic.

But eruvei tehumim are obligatory,

and it is forbidden to walk outside the Shabbat limit without an eruv, since the prohibition of tehumim is from the Torah [Ritba; and see Rabbenu Yehonatan on the Mishna].

For

this

Rabbi Hiyya taught: One is flogged for eruvei tehumim by Torah law,

that is to say, for one who goes outside the Shabbat limit without making an eruv. For it is written: “No man shall go out from his place on the seventh day.”

And from here we learn that it is forbidden to go outside the limit, and one who goes out is flogged for this negative commandment.

Rabbi Yonatan challenged

this teaching of Rabbi Hiyya:

And are people flogged for a negative commandment stated with “al”,

for here it is written, “al”—“No man shall go out from his place”?!

Rav Aha bar Yaakov challenged

Rabbi Yonatan’s challenge, who held that one is not flogged where the Torah wrote the negative commandment in the wording “al”:

But if that is so,

this

which is written: “Al turn to the ghosts and to the familiar spirits”

to inquire of them. And if you say

that this too means that he is not flogged?!

But it is obvious that he is flogged!

And we answer: Rabbi Yonatan did not intend to distinguish between the wording “al” and the wording “lo” with regard to flogging. Rather,

Rabbi Yonatan—

this was difficult for him:

Are people flogged for the negative commandment of “No man shall go out from his place on the seventh day”?!

But this negative commandment was not stated concerning “going out” beyond the limit, but only concerning the labor of “carrying out” from one domain to another. And if so, the negative commandment of “al yetze”—

a negative commandment given as a warning for a court-imposed death penalty

for carrying out [for which one is liable to death, like the other labors of Shabbat].

And for every negative commandment given as a warning for a court-imposed death penalty,

when the negative commandment comes to warn him not to do so and to inform him that he becomes liable to a court-imposed death penalty [for there is no punishment unless there is a warning], even if they did not warn him concerning death, but warned him only concerning flogging [in which case there is no liability to death for this violation of the negative commandment, since they did not warn him], nevertheless—

he is not flogged for it!

For this negative commandment was given as a warning for death and not for flogging.

And since this is so: even if he carries out from one domain to another, and they warn him on account of the negative commandment of “al yetze,” he is not flogged.

And we answer:

Rav Ashi said:

This negative commandment does not come for “carrying out,” but for “going out” beyond the limit.

For

is it written

in the verse

“al yotzi”—

which would imply that the verse came to prohibit carrying out a burden from one domain to another?!

After all,

“al yetze” is written,

which implies “going out” beyond the limit!

We shall return to you, chapter “A passageway that is high.”

“Biraot” are wells of flowing water, located in the public domain. Their depth is ten handbreadths and their width is four handbreadths".

And they are the private domain, and one may not draw water from them on Shabbat, for he is taking the water from the private domain into the public domain.

It follows that pilgrims could not water their animals on Shabbat from the pits that were along the road of their ascent.

Therefore the Sages were lenient and said that there is a way to permit them to water their animal by means of “posts of the wells”.

These posts are not complete partitions; rather, they stand in the form of angles around the pit, and thereby create a private domain according to Torah law [see the illustration, in the introduction, and in the explanations of concepts].

What is special about these partitions is that the breaches in them are greatly more than the standing portions, and nevertheless these partitions have the power to create a private domain, because they have “the designation of four partitions”.

Indeed, the Sages prohibited carrying within such partitions, because the breached area in them is greater than the standing area, but for pilgrims they were lenient, so as not to issue a decree against them.

Therefore:

Mishna:

1.

They make

an enclosure of

posts

around

the wells

of water.

And the posts make the surroundings of the pit a private domain, and the pilgrims may draw water from the pit into the area between the posts of the wells, and place it there, and the animals will enter and drink.

How does one enclose with these posts?

One drives in, around the well at four corners,

four double-posts,

angles — Rambam.

A double-post means “two posts”: two posts, because each post is made like a gutter and appears as two.

And

the four

double-posts

appear as eight

posts. For example, when one drives a double-post into the southwestern corner, one of its sides inclines to the south and its other side to the west.

The width of each side is one cubit [as follows in the Mishna]. It follows that on each side around the well there are two cubits of partition [half a double-post here and half a double-post there], one cubit opposite one cubit, with the space between them,

the words of Rabbi Judah.

Rabbi Meir says:

Four double-posts are not sufficient for the enclosure of a well.

Rather, he makes

eight

posts that

appear as twelve

posts.

How so? He makes around the well

four double-posts

that appear as eight posts, and places the double-posts at the four corners of the pit.

And

in addition to this, they also make between the four double-posts

four

posts

that are simple,

one post between each double-post and the next. [See illustration 1]

[And in the Gemara it explains the width of the well and the width of the enclosure, Rabbi Meir said].

Their height —

of the double-posts and of the simple posts —

ten handbreadths.

And their width

of the double-posts and of the simple posts [Ritba according to Rashi]

six

handbreadths, which are one cubit.

And their thickness

of the double-posts and of the simple posts may be

any amount.

And between them,

of the double-posts and of the simple posts, the width of the opening may be up to the measure of

“the filling of two herds”

[animals standing close to one another — Rashi, Bava Metzia 30a], in pairs

of three cattle each

in each “herd,” that is, ten cubits [as will be explained in the Gemara],

the words of Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Judah says:

The distance between the double-posts may be up to the filling of two “herds,” in pairs

of four each

cattle. That is, thirteen and one-third cubits [as will be explained in the Gemara].

Both according to Rabbi Meir and according to Rabbi Judah, the measure is determined by the cows found in a “herd” when they are

tied,

so that they are pressed together well within the “herd.” And

not

is the measure determined by animals when they are

untied,

which are not tied and are found at some distance from one another.

And the space between the double-posts is measured according to the width of two herds when

one

of them

enters

between the double-posts

and one leaves

from them.

And to teach: that one measures with generous cubits and not constricted cubits!

2.

One may bring

the posts

near the well

as much as he wishes,

provided

that the distance between the well and the posts in every direction [so it follows from Rashi below, 19a; and see Rabbeinu Jonathan] is sufficient

for a cow

to be able to enter

its head and most of its body inside, and drink

[and its measure is explained in the Gemara, that it is two cubits].

But with less than this, the Sages prohibited watering, since there is no place for a person to stand there. And they were concerned lest the person be drawn after his cow, whose head and most of whose body are outside, and take the vessel with which he waters it outside the posts, and it follows that he is taking from the private domain into the public domain.