Eruvin 97b — the Talmud in English

Abaye said to him

to Rav:

How did you establish the Mishna—

in a danger posed by gentiles,

who had decreed against the mitzva of tefillin.

If so,

say the latter clause: Rabbi Shimon says: He gives them to his fellow, and his fellow to his fellow.

But

all the more so, the matter becomes public,

for if many people occupy themselves with them, the matter will be heard by the authorities more than if he had brought them in alone, pair by pair, or remained with them until nightfall?

And we answer:

The Mishna is incomplete,

and

this is what it teaches:

When are these words

that he covers them and goes away,

in a danger posed by gentiles. But in a danger posed by bandits—

he brings them less than four cubits at a time,

as it teaches in the beraita. And Rabbi Shimon disagrees with this, as it will explain below.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Shimon says: He gives them to his fellow,

and his fellow to his fellow, until he reaches the outer courtyard.

And we explain:

In what do

the first tanna and Rabbi Shimon disagree?

One master,

the first tanna,

holds:

To bring them

less than four cubits at a time is preferable.

For if you say that he gives them to his fellow, and his fellow to his fellow—

the matter of Shabbat becomes public,

there is much publicity in this, and the matter may lead to contempt for Shabbat.

And the other master,

Rabbi Shimon,

holds: Giving them to his fellow is preferable.

For if you say that he brings them less than four cubits at a time,

there is concern that

sometimes he is not attentive,

he does not pay attention to being precise,

and he will bring them four cubits in the public domain.

We learned in the Mishna:

And likewise his son.

And we ask about this:

His son—

what is he seeking there,

in the field, such that he needs to bring him into the city?

And we answer:

The school of Menashe taught:

This is what we are dealing with:

His mother gave birth to him in the field.

And what is the meaning of “even if they are one hundred”

that it teaches in the Mishna—what is the novelty of this?

Even though his hand is distressed

for the infant, since passing him from hand to hand is difficult for him,

even so, this is preferable

to bringing him himself less than four cubits at a time.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Yehuda says: A person gives a barrel

to his fellow, and his fellow to his fellow, even beyond the limit.

And we ask about this:

And

if

Rabbi Yehuda does not hold of that which we learned

in tractate Beitza:

An animal and vessels

are

like the feet of their owners.

One who borrows an animal or vessels from his fellow on a Festival may bring them only to the end of the limit to which their owners are permitted to walk [for example, if the owners placed a boundary-eruv to the north of the city, so that they lose the two thousand cubits to the south. And if the borrower did not place an eruv, the borrower may not bring them to the south of the city, but only as far as the owners are able to walk].

And how did Rabbi Yehuda say that they may bring the barrel even beyond the limit of the owners?

And we answer:

Reish Lakish said in the name of the elder Levi: This is what we are dealing with: With one who pours them,

who pours and decants the water

from a barrel

of his own

into a barrel

of his fellow. And for this reason his fellow may bring his barrel, containing the water of the first, until the end of his limit. And likewise, when his fellow hands it to another fellow, he too transfers the water into his fellow’s barrel.

And there is no concern regarding the transfer of the water, despite the fact that it remains in the domain of the original owners, because

Rabbi Yehuda

follows

his position, for he says: Water has no substance!

It does not acquire a place of rest with its original owners to be like them; rather, each one may bring it until the end of his limit.

For

we learned: A woman who borrowed from her fellow on a Festival spices for her pot, or water and salt for her dough, may bring the pot and the dough only to a place to which both women are permitted to walk, since both have a share in the cooked dish or in the dough.

Rabbi Yehuda exempts water,

since a place of rest and a limit belonging to the owners who lent it did not apply to it—

because it has no substance.

And what is the meaning of “this shall not walk

more than the feet of its owners,” which the Sages say to Rabbi Yehuda, for “this” implies that it refers to the barrel; yet Rabbi Yehuda also agrees that a barrel may go only to the place of the feet of its owners, since we established his statement as referring to one who transfers the water from his barrel to his fellow’s barrel?

This is what they say:

What is in this shall not walk—

namely, the water—

more than the feet of the owners.

For the Sages follow their position, that water too acquires a place of rest in the place of the owners.

And we challenge this:

I can say that you heard Rabbi Yehuda say

that water has no substance only

where it is absorbed in dough.

But

where it is present as it is,

as in the Mishna—

did you hear him say so?

And there is proof for this:

Now, in a pot,

water placed into the cooked dish, we find that

Rabbi Yehuda said

that the water

is not nullified

—when the water is

present as it is, is it nullified?!

For it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yehuda says: Water and salt are nullified

from their feet when they are placed

in dough,

because they are not discernible in it, and one does not take into consideration the limit of the owners of the salt and water, but only the limit of the owners of the dough.

But they are not nullified,

the water, when it is

in a pot—

because of its gravy,

for the gravy of the pot is visible to the eye.

Rather, Rava said: Here we are dealing with a barrel that acquired a place of rest,

an ordinary barrel that is drawn after the feet of its owners,

and with water that did not acquire a place of rest.

The water was drawn today from the spring, so that each person may bring it according to his limit.

And Rabbi Yehuda holds that each person may bring the barrel as well according to his limit, because

the

barrel is nullified

with regard to the water,

for the barrel is subordinate to the water.

As we learned

in tractate Shabbat:

One who carries

a person,

alive, on a bed,

from a private domain to a public domain, since he is exempt for carrying the living person, because we say, “A living person carries himself,” and he is not considered a burden —

he is exempt even for

carrying

the bed, because the bed is subordinate to him.

And likewise

one who carries food,

which is

less than the measure

for which one is liable when carrying it out [a dried fig]

in a vessel—

he is exempt even for

carrying

the vessel.

Because the vessel is subordinate to it,

to the food, and for the food he is exempt because it is less than the measure.

And Rabbi Yehuda holds that the same applies with regard to acquiring a place of rest: the feet of the barrel are nullified with regard to the feet of the water.

And the Sages disagree with Rabbi Yehuda, and hold that only with regard to carrying out do we say that the subordinate is nullified with regard to the principal, but not with regard to acquiring a place of rest.

Therefore, one may not take the barrel outside the limit of its owners.

Rav Yosef raised an objection

from that which was taught:

Rabbi Yehuda says: In a caravan,

a group of people that encamped in a place where there was no water —

a person gives

a barrel of water

to his fellow, and his fellow to his fellow,

even beyond the limit.

And it implies:

In a caravan—

yes.

Since Rabbi Yehuda permitted it to them only because of the compulsion.

But

not in a caravan—

no!?

Rather, Rav Yosef said:

Indeed,

when we also learned our Mishna—

we learned it with regard to a caravan,

for Rabbi Yehuda permitted it only then.

Abaye said:

There are two laws for Rabbi Yehuda:

A.

In a caravan

it is permitted

even with a barrel that acquired a place of rest, and water that acquired a place of rest,

which was drawn on the eve of Shabbat. Although they are like the feet of the original owners, nevertheless it is permitted to bring them beyond his limit. And this is the law of the beraita.

B.

Not in a caravan

it is permitted only with a

barrel that acquired a place of rest, and water that did not acquire a place of rest.

As we said, because of the nullification of the barrel with regard to the water. And this is the law stated in our Mishna.

Rav Ashi said: Here we are dealing with a barrel that is ownerless property, and with water that is ownerless property,

and ownerless objects do not acquire a place of rest anywhere. Therefore, Rabbi Yehuda holds that it is permitted to bring both the barrel and the water anywhere.

And who are “those who said to him”

who disagree with Rabbi Yehuda?

It is Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri! For he said: Ownerless objects acquire a place of rest

in their location, and one may not take them beyond the limit where they were on the eve of Shabbat.

And what is the meaning of “this shall not walk more than the feet of the owners”

which the Sages said, since they have no owners at all?

This is what they say:

These shall not walk more than objects that have owners,

since they too acquire a place of rest as though they had owners.

The Mishna:

One was reading from a scroll

rolled in a scroll [for all their scrolls were made this way, like our Torah scrolls]

on the threshold,

the doorstep before the house, and while he was reading

the scroll rolled from his hand

into the public domain, while one end of it still remained in his hand—

he rolls it back to himself!

It is permitted for him to roll up the scroll and return it to himself, since the entire scroll did not fall from his hand, but one end remained in his hand.

If he was reading at the top of the roof and the scroll rolled from his hand

into the public domain, if

before it reached

the end of the scroll

the ten handbreadths,

the lower ten handbreadths adjacent to the ground, whose status is that of the public domain—

he rolls it back to himself.

But

once it reached the ten handbreadths,

the lower ones—

he turns it over onto the writing,

so that the letters face the wall, so that it will not lie in such great disgrace, and he leaves it there until the conclusion of Shabbat.

Rabbi Yehuda says: Even if it is not raised above the ground,

so that the scroll is not higher than the ground

by more than the thickness of a thread—

he rolls it back to himself.

Rabbi Shimon says: Even if

the scroll reached

the ground itself—

he rolls it back

to himself,

for you have no matter

that is forbidden only

because of a rabbinic restriction

such as here, where the entire scroll did not fall from his hand, and bringing it in from the public domain to him involves only a rabbinic prohibition,

that stands in the way of the sacred writings!

For the rabbinic restriction is set aside so that the sacred writings will not be disgraced. And the Gemara will explain all the words of the Mishna.

The Gemara:

And we ask about this:

What are the circumstances of this threshold?

If you say it is a threshold

that is

a private domain,

for example, that the threshold is ten handbreadths high and four handbreadths wide,

and there stands

before it is located

a public domain,

and although one end of the scroll fell as far as the ground of the public domain, it is permitted to roll it up and return it to the private domain, since one end remained in his hand, it is not considered placed in the public domain.

And

it follows that

we do not decree lest it fall

the entire scroll into the public domain

and he come to bring it

into the private domain, despite the fact that this involves liability for a sin-offering.