Eruvin 44b — the Talmud in English

Rather, [the contradiction concerning] a person and [the contradiction concerning] a person [the first beraita states: if its wall fell, he may not set up a person in its place as a wall; and the second beraita states: a person may make his fellow a wall] still

: в одной барайте сказано: если упала ее стена, не ставят в ней человека; а во второй барайте сказано: человек может сделать своего товарища стеной —

remains difficult:

for it is impossible to say, as we answered with regard to utensils, that he makes him the fourth wall of the sukka, since in the beraita that permits it, it is taught: “so that he may eat, drink, and sleep,” which shows that through the person the sukka was rendered fit for its mitzvot; and the beraitot would still contradict one another?!

[The contradiction concerning] a person and [the contradiction concerning] a person is likewise not difficult:

Here—

in the beraita that prohibits setting up a person as a wall, they set up the person

with the knowledge of

the person standing there, and therefore it is prohibited even though this is not the usual manner of construction, since the matter becomes conspicuous and people will come to permit a partition even with utensils [Ran; see Ritva].

Here—

in the beraita that permits setting up a person as a wall, it is speaking of a case in which they set him up

without the knowledge of

the person standing there, and therefore, since setting up a person is not the usual manner of construction, it is permitted.

And we ask: But according to what was explained—that when one sets up a person as a partition with his knowledge, it is prohibited to do so on Shabbat—the following remains difficult:

But

in that incident

of Rabbi Nehemiah, son of Rabbi Hanilai—

in which people were set up as a partition—

with the knowledge of

those people

it was, and how was it permitted to set them up on Shabbat?!

и как же можно было ставить их в Шабат?!

And we answer: In truth,

without the knowledge of

those people

it was, and therefore it was permitted to set them up on Shabbat.

и поэтому было разрешено поставить их в Шабат.

And we still ask: But

Rav Hisda, at any rate,

who initiated the partition,

it was with knowledge, and how could he himself join the partition?!

так как же он сам присоединился к перегородке?!

And we answer:

Rav Hisda

himself

was not included in the count, meaning: Rav Hisda himself did not join the partition.

, то есть сам рав Хисда не присоединился к перегородке.

There were those wedding attendants who brought water [Rav Hananel explained: the sons of the wedding canopy; and he had the reading: who brought myrtle]

from the public domain into the private domain

with a partition of people

who were set up with their knowledge in the public domain, where the water was placed, and through that partition they brought the water into the private domain.

Samuel flogged them [he flogged them]

[подверг их бичеванию]

Samuel, because

because he

said: If they said

to permit making a partition of people when they were set up

without their knowledge, they will say that it is permitted even

to do so

with knowledge [as a question]?!

[вопросительно]?!

Those wineskins [jugs]

[мешки для жидкости]

that were lying in the marketplace of Mehoza [that were placed in the city street—which is the public domain—of the city of Mehoza, the city of Rava, and the wineskins belonged to him],

[которые находились на городской улице — то есть в общественном владении — города Мехоза, города Равы, и бурдюки принадлежали ему],

when Rava came from his lecture [when Rava returned from delivering the lecture, and a multitude of those who had heard the lecture were following him],

[когда Рава возвращался после произнесения лекции, а вслед за ним шла толпа слушателей]

he brought them in for him [the attendant brought the wineskins into Rava’s house among the people who became a partition], and it was permitted for him to do so because the people had not been placed there for the purpose of making a partition.

[служка внес бурдюки в дом Равы внутри толпы людей, которые образовали перегородку], и ему было разрешено так поступить, поскольку людей поставили там не с целью создать перегородку.

For another Shabbat [for the following Shabbat]

[в следующий Шабат]

the attendant

служка

wanted to bring them in, and Rava prohibited it [the attendant again wanted to do so, and Rava prohibited it], because

[служка снова хотел поступить так, и Рава ему запретил], поскольку

it had now become

now

as though with knowledge, since, because he had made them into a partition once, it was likely that they would know,

так как после того, как однажды из них сделали перегородку, весьма вероятно, что люди об этом узнали,

and it is prohibited. [Based on Shulhan Arukh, section 362, subsection 5.]

И

To

Levi they brought in straw [they brought straw into his house from the public domain, by means of a partition of people who had been set up there without their knowledge].

[в его дом внесли солому из общественного владения с помощью перегородки из людей, поставленных там без их ведома].

And to

Zeiri

they brought in in this manner

alfalfa [hay].

[сено].

And to

Rav Shimi bar Hiyya

they brought in

water [water].

[воду].

Mishna:

One who went out

outside the Shabbat limit

with permission,

for example, he went to testify concerning the sighting of the new moon [as was explained in the Mishna in Rosh Hashana, page 20: one desecrates Shabbat in order to come to testify concerning the sighting of the new moon for the months of Nisan and Tishrei], or he went out to save lives, or a midwife who went out beyond the limit of her town in order to deliver a child.

And they said to him

while he was still on the way:

The

the

matter

for the sake of which he went out beyond the limit has already been accomplished and there is no longer a need for him; and all the more so if he reached that place and there was a need for him there.

Thus: even though one who went out beyond the limit involuntarily has only four cubits, this one who went out with permission has a superior status, and

he has two thousand cubits in every direction

from the place where he is when they inform him, or when he saves lives.

If he was

at the time when they informed him

within the limit, it is as though he had not gone out,

the Gemara explains this.

All who go out to save lives may return to their place,

the Gemara explains this.

Gemara:

It entered our understanding to explain what we learned: “If he was within the limit, it is as though he had not gone out,” namely, as though he had not gone out “from his limit,” and his law is like that of the other inhabitants of the city; and therefore we ask:

What does it mean, “If he was within the limit, it is ‘as though’ he had not gone out”? But in truth this is so: he did not go out from his limit?!

Rabba said: This is what it means: If he was

at the time when they informed him

within

his “limit”

it is as though he had not gone out “from his house,”

it is considered so,

and they do not give him two thousand cubits from the place where he is; rather, he has the city and its limits.

And we still ask:

It is obvious

that they enacted two thousand cubits for him from the place where he is only where he lost his original limit, since according to the basic law he has only four cubits. But where he still has his original limit, since he did not leave it, certainly they do not give him another limit; and why is it necessary to teach us this law?!

And we answer:

Lest you say: Since he uprooted himself, he uprooted himself,

that is, since if he had reached the place where he was needed, he would have had two thousand cubits from that place, and he had already uprooted his feet to go there, let us say that he is considered as though he had reached there;

it teaches us

our Mishna—that this is not so.

Rav Shimi bar Hiyya said

to explain what we learned, “If he was within the limit, it is as though he had not gone out,” that the Mishna is not speaking of one who has not yet gone out from his home limit; rather,

this is what it means:

Even though he had already gone out,

if the limits [the new ones]

[новые],

that the Sages gave him [from the place where they informed him]

[от места, где ему сообщили],

are contained within

the original limit

of his [so that the two thousand cubits from the place where they informed him enter within the two thousand cubits that he had from his city]

[то есть две тысячи локтей от места, где ему сообщили, входят в те две тысячи локтей, которые у него были от его города],

it is as though he had not gone out from his limit.

That is: if he wishes, he may walk within the two thousand cubits given to him until his first limit, and once he reaches there, he returns to his first limit and has two thousand cubits from his house as at first, [according to the meaning of Rashi and the words of the Ritva].

And we explain:

In what do they disagree,

Rabba and Rav Shimi bar Hiyya?

One [Rav Shimi bar Hiyya]

[рав Шими бар Хия]

holds: the overlapping of limits is a matter.

And the other [Rabba, who did not explain that the Mishna came to teach the law of overlapping limits]

[Раба, который не истолковал Мишну как сообщающую закон о включении одних границ в другие]

holds:

the overlapping of limits

is not a matter,

and he holds that even if his two thousand cubits enter within the two thousand cubits that he had, and he returned to his limit, he does not return to his home limit as at first.

This teaching has been explained according to Rashi’s version in his first commentary.

Abaye said to Rabba: Do you not also hold [do you not agree]

[разве ты не согласен]

that the overlapping of limits is a matter?!

But:

A. One who spends Shabbat in a place enclosed by partitions is allotted two thousand cubits in every direction from the entrance of that place.

B. If that place had two entrances, one to the east and one to the west: if he went out through the eastern entrance, he has two thousand cubits in every direction from the entrance through which he went out; and if he went out through the western one, he has two thousand cubits in every direction from the western entrance.

C. If he went out through the eastern entrance and returned to his place, and then went out again through the western entrance, he has two thousand cubits from the west, and so on in turn.

D. If he spent Shabbat in a long cave, and went out through the eastern entrance, and was walking on the roof of the cave [which is not considered like four cubits] toward the west, once the two thousand cubits from the eastern entrance were exhausted, he was prohibited from walking farther. And if he wished to reach the western entrance, he had to retrace his steps to the eastern entrance and walk through the entire inside of the cave [which is considered for him only like four cubits] until the western entrance, and from there he would have two thousand cubits in every direction.

And Abaye said to Rabba:

And what if he spent Shabbat in a cave whose inside

is long

four thousand

cubits,

and on its roof

of the cave

[there were] fewer than four thousand cubits [for the cave’s entrances, from the east and from the west, were made on this slope toward one another].

[поскольку входы пещеры с востока и с запада были устроены с наклоном навстречу друг другу].

And is it that

he is not found to be walking across all of it and beyond it two thousand cubits?

That is: Do you not agree that if he went out through the eastern entrance of the cave and was walking on the roof of the cave toward its western entrance, we do not say that once he reaches the end of two thousand cubits he must retrace his steps and come to the western entrance through the inside of the cave [as would indeed be the law if there were more than four thousand cubits on its roof, as was explained]; rather, we say that he should walk across the entire roof toward the west, and he will additionally have two thousand cubits from the west?! For you must concede this, since this is what we have received as a tradition, [Ritva].

And the reason for this law is that, since the limit he has from the east is contained within the limit he has from the west [for there are not four thousand cubits between the two entrances], “the overlapping of limits makes the limits of the two departures into one” [Rashi].

We see, then, that the overlapping of limits is a matter; and how does Rabba say that the overlapping of limits is not a matter?!

He said to him—Rabba said to Abaye:

How can you compare the overlapping of limits on the roof of a cave, where the two limits—the eastern and the western—came to him by virtue of the Shabbat rest that he observed in the cave before nightfall, to the overlapping of limits in the case of one who went out beyond the limit with permission?!

And

if

you do not distinguish between a case where he observed Shabbat within the airspace of partitions before nightfall, and a case where he did not observe Shabbat within the airspace of partitions before nightfall,

for if he observed Shabbat within the airspace of partitions before nightfall, we hold generally that the entire place in which he observed Shabbat is for him like four cubits, whereas in a case where he did not observe Shabbat within the airspace of those partitions, the entire place is not considered for him like four cubits?!

And since you concede this, here too, with regard to the overlapping of limits: only where the two limits came to him by virtue of the Shabbat rest that he observed before nightfall does the overlapping of limits make them one limit.

But in the case of one who went out beyond the limit with permission, for that new limit which the Sages gave him did not come to him by virtue of a Shabbat rest that he observed before nightfall, once he acquired a new place of Shabbat rest, he no longer has the previous place of Shabbat rest that he had; and even if he enters his first limit, he does not return to his limit. [Explained according to the wording of Rashi before us.]

And Abaye asks Rabba:

And in a case where he did not observe Shabbat

and he has a new limit that came to him on Shabbat, is it that

we do not

apply the overlapping of limits?!