Shabbat 101b — the Talmud in English

And he said to him

Rav to Rabbi Tavla:

A suspended partition does not permit ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

except in water.

And this is such as what they taught in Eruvin 87b concerning a gezuztra that is higher than the sea, which makes a suspended partition at the gezuztra and draws through it; and likewise we find there, 86a, that the Sages permitted drawing from a well between two courtyards by means of a suspended partition, and because

it is a matter in which the Sages were lenient in water,

but in a ruin they did not permit.

And

behold,

why

does a suspended partition help to permit in water?

Is there not the passage of fish?

That is to say, surely the reason that the suspended partition helps is that we say, “Extend the partition downward” until the ground; and if the passage of fish is called passage, this partition has thereby been nullified.

Rather, infer from this that the passage of fish is not called passage.

We learned in the Mishna:

Boats tied

to one another: one may carry from one to the other. If they are not tied, even though they are enclosed, one may not carry from one to the other:

And the Gemara assumed that the boats belonged to one person; and when they are not tied to one another, it is forbidden to carry from one to the other, lest the second boat move—while the object is being transferred from boat to boat—and the object fall into the sea, and one may be concerned that perhaps he will bring it from the sea, which is a karmelit, into the boat, which is a private domain. Therefore we ask:

It is obvious,

that if they are tied to one another and there is no concern about falling and bringing in, it is permitted to carry from one to the other, since there is no prohibition against carrying from one private domain to another private domain when they belong to one person!?

He said

he answered

Rava: It was necessary

for our Mishna

only

to permit a small boat

[a small boat]

that

is standing

between them

of the boats—that is, if they are tied to one another, then it is permitted to carry from one to the other even through the small boat between the two large boats, although it itself is not tied.

He said

he challenged

Rav Safra

to Rava:

Moses

[that is, “our master in his generation is like Moses in his generation”]

you have spoken well

[have you spoken correctly]!? But

“one may carry from one to the other

we learned.”

And this implies that nothing else interrupts, into which this object being carried would enter!?

Rather, Rav Safra said

to explain the novelty in our Mishna, which permitted carrying from boat to boat when they are tied:

It was necessary

for our Mishna, which permits carrying from boat to boat when they are tied to one another,

only

when the two boats belonged to two people, and

to establish an eruv and to carry from one to the other,

that is, our Mishna comes to teach us that the two boats can establish an eruv between them and carry from one to the other, for I might have thought that an eruv is not effective in boats, since they are not fixed there.

As it was taught in a beraita: Boats tied to one another: one establishes an eruv and carries from one to the other.

And if

they were severed

from the tying of the boats,

they became prohibited

for carrying from one to the other.

They returned

the boats

and became tied: whether

they were tied

unwittingly,

because they did not know that today was Shabbat or that tying is a labor from among the labors of Shabbat,

or

they were tied

intentionally, whether

they were

forced

in the tying,

or

they were

mistaken,

that is, they were occupied with another matter in order to tie it, and the boats became tied—

the boats returned

to

their original permission.

And likewise mats spread across the public domain,

that is, mats from which many partitions were made in the public domain, and individuals spent Shabbat among them, one in this and one in that,

establish an eruv

the residents among the mats, an eruv of courtyards,

and carry

by means of them

from one to the other.

And if

the mats were rolled up

and the areas designated for one another were breached,

they became prohibited.

They returned and were spread out, whether unwittingly or intentionally, whether

under compulsion or mistakenly, they returned to their original permission—

for every partition that was made on Shabbat, whether unwittingly or intentionally, is called a partition.

And we challenge this:

Is that so!?

How did we learn that a partition made in violation is called a partition to permit carrying by means of it!?

But Rav Naḥman said: They taught

that a partition made in violation is a partition

only

to be stringent, concerning

throwing

from the public domain into the partition, for which he is liable.

But

to be lenient,

to carry

by means of a partition made in violation,

is forbidden.

And we answer:

When Rav Naḥman’s statement was said,

that the partition does not help to permit carrying when it is made in violation,

it was said

only

about an intentional act,

for a partition made intentionally does not help to permit carrying, because it is a fine with which the Sages fined him; but in the other cases mentioned in the beraita, although the partition was made in violation, it is a partition even to be lenient and to carry by means of it.

Shmuel said:

This that we learned in our Mishna, “Boats tied to one another: one may carry from one to the other,” means:

even if they are tied with the cord of a robe

[a cord threaded through the collar of a garment in order to tighten the garment around the neck].

And we challenge this:

What are the circumstances

[in what case is Shmuel speaking]!?

If it can

that cord of the robe

hold them in place

so that the boats do not separate from one another, then

it is obvious,

for what difference does it make with what cord they are tied, since they cannot separate from one another!?

And

if it cannot

that cord

hold them in place

so that they do not separate from one another,

why,

why should this cord help!?

And we answer:

Actually,

here we are dealing with a case such as one in which

it can

that cord

hold them in place

so that they do not separate;

and

as for what is difficult for you—“It is obvious”—I will say to you:

Shmuel

needed to teach us that even the cord of a robe helps to permit in boats;

he comes to refute his own statement

[he comes to refute his own words]—

That is, since we find that Shmuel himself said concerning boats [with regard to another matter, for which the Sages required tying with something that holds the boat in place]: “The Sages said this only when he tied it with something that people ordinarily use to hold it in place,” therefore Shmuel needed to teach us: with regard to Shabbat, where the Sages required tying with something that holds the boat in place, it is not necessary to tie specifically with something that people ordinarily use to hold it in place; rather, any tying that holds the boats so that they do not separate from one another is tying, and it is permitted to carry from one to the other.

For we learned: If he tied it

to a boat to the tent of the dead

with something that holds it in place,

it

brings impurity to it,

because that cable with which he tied the boat became impure, and it renders the boat itself impure, and the boat renders the vessels inside it impure.

But if he tied it

with something that does not hold it in place, it does not

bring impurity to it,

as he proceeds to explain the reason.

And Shmuel said: And this is when it is tied

the boat

with an iron chain

which people ordinarily use to hold the boat in place. That is, when the Sages said, “with something that holds it in place,” the Sages did not mean every tying that holds the boat in place, but tying with something that people ordinarily use to hold the boat in place, namely an iron chain; and he proceeds to explain the reason.

A vessel that becomes impure through a corpse becomes a primary source of impurity. But a metal vessel that becomes impure through a corpse has the status of the corpse itself, and one that becomes impure through this vessel becomes a primary source of impurity as though it had become impure through the corpse itself, for this is what the Sages expounded from the verse, “And whoever touches upon the open field one slain by the sword or a dead body”: to teach you that the sword with which they killed the dead person—and likewise other metal vessels that became impure through a corpse—has the status of the corpse itself, which is the primary of primaries of impurity.

And this is what Shmuel taught us:

with regard to impurity, it is

since

it is written, “by one slain by the sword,”

and we expound:

“A sword has the status of a corpse”—

no, in this case it indeed requires tying specifically with an iron chain, because the cable becomes like the corpse itself, rendering the boat a primary source of impurity, and the boat renders the vessels inside it first-degree impurity. But when it is not tied with a metal chain, then the cable becomes a primary source of impurity and renders the boat first-degree impurity; and a first-degree source of impurity does not render vessels impure.

in this case it is indeed necessary to tie the boat specifically with an iron chain, because the cable assumes the status of the corpse itself and renders the boat a primary source of ritual impurity, and the boat renders the vessels inside it impure with first-degree impurity. But when it is not tied with a metal chain, the cable becomes a primary source of ritual impurity and renders the boat impure with first-degree impurity; and an object with first-degree impurity cannot render vessels impure.

But with regard to Shabbat, since it can

the cord

hold it in place, even if

it holds it in place

with the cord of a robe,

it is permitted to carry by means of this tying.