Various Authors Various Authors - Talmud

MISHNAS I., II., and III. How are the legal limits to be combined? A child that is only six years old may go out in the legal limits which have been combined by its mother. How much is the legal quantity of food required to effect the combination of limits? Note about coins and measures mentioned in the Tract. If the inhabitants of a court and balcony should have forgotten to combine an Erub. If there were three ruins between two houses, each house may use the adjoining ruin by throwing therein, except the middle one (with illustrations), 198-204

MISHNAS IV., V., VI., and VII. If a man deposit his Erub for the combination of courts in a vestibule, gallery, or balcony. If a company was seated at table on the eve of Sabbath, the bread on the table may be depended upon to serve as an Erub. If a man leaves his house and goes to take his Sabbath-rest in another town (without previously joining in the Erub). If there be a well between two courts it is not lawful to draw water. if a canal runs through a court it is not lawful to draw water, unless there be a partition. If a canal flows between two walls which contain apertures, 204-209

MISHNAS VIII. and IX. If there be a balcony above the water. The law concerning robbery is applicable also on Sabbath. If the court be less than four ells square it is not permitted to pour water therein on Sabbath, unless a sewer is made. All these regulations concerning the pouring of water apply only to summer, 209-213

MISHNAS I. and II. All the roofs of a town are considered one private ground, provided there be not one roof ten hands higher than the rest. If a man erected an attic on top of his house and provided it with a small door four spans wide, he may carry things in all the roofs. All roofs are considered as one private ground in their own right. "It happened in a time of danger that we brought up the sacred scrolls from a court to a roof." If a large roof adjoins a small one. If there are three woodsheds opening into each other, of which the two outer are enclosed while the middle one is not (with illustrations), 214-223

MISHNAS ITT., IV., and V. If a court (through an incavation of its walls) is laid open to public ground. In a court (the corner walls of which had fallen in on Sabbath so) that it has been laid open to public ground on two sides. If an attic be built over two houses, also if bridges are open at both ends, 223-226

MISHNAS I., II., and III. If a man finds tephilin on the road he should watch them and bring them into the nearest town or village; likewise his child he should hand to his companion, etc. If one buys tephilin of a man who is not an expert, he must examine two tephilin. How came his child on the field or on the road? This refers to a child that was born there. If a man reads in a scroll (of sacred scriptures) on the threshold of the house and it slips out of his hand. On a ledge outside a window it is permitted to place vessels, 227-235

MISHNAS IV., V., VI., VII., VIII., and IX. A man may stand in private ground and move things that are in public ground. A man must not, standing in private ground, drink in public ground. A man may catch water dropping from a spout on the roof. If a well, standing in public ground, have an enclosure ten spans high. Beneath a tree, the branches of which droop and cover the ground. The shutters of a bleaching ground or thorn bushes, 235-240

MISHNAS X. to XVIII. A man must not, standing in private ground, unlock with a key something in public ground. A loose bolt, with a knob to it, is prohibited to use on Sabbath. A loose bolt that is fastened to a rope may be used in the Temple only. In the Temple the lower hinge of a cupboard door may be refitted into its place. Priests who minister may replace a plaster in the Temple. The Levites performing on musical instruments may tie a string. The priests who minister may remove a wart from an animal on Sabbath. A ministering priest who hurts his finger may bind it up with reeds in the Temple. Should the carcass of a dead reptile be found in the Temple on the Sabbath the priest shall move it out with his belt. From which parts of the Temple should it be removed? It is permitted for anyone to enter the Temple for the purpose of building, 240-251

Footnotes

1See introduction to synopsis in Tract Sabbath, Vol. I., p. xxix.

Table of Contents

REGULATIONS CONCERNING THE WIDTH AND HEIGHT OF AN ERUB CONSTRUCTED IN STREETS INHABITED SOLELY BY ISRAELITES, AND REGULATIONS CONCERNING THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ERUB BY A CARAVAN.

MISHNA: If an entry 1be higher than twenty ells, it should be lowered. R. Jehudah said: "This is not necessary." If it be wider than ten ells, it should be made narrower, but if it have the appearance of a door, even though it be wider than ten ells, it need not be made narrower.

GEMARA: We have learned in a Mishna [Sukkah, I. a] that a booth which is higher than twenty ells is unfit for use, and R. Jehudah said, that it maybe used. Why does the Mishna in the case of an entry decree, that it should be remedied by lowering, while in the case of a booth it declares it unfit for use? Because in the case of a booth a number of other defects are mentioned in connection with the excessive height and each of those would require a special explanation as to how they were to be remedied, whereas in the case of an entry only two things are to be corrected, and the remedy for them is taught.

R. Jehudah said in the name of Rabh: The difference of opinion between the sages and R. Jehudah is based upon the door and the porch of pillars in the temple. We have learned in a Mishna, that the door of the Temple was twenty ells in height and ten ells in width and that the porch was forty ells in height and twenty ells in width. The sages compare the entry with the door and R. Jehudah compares it with the porch of the Temple, which was also more or less a door; and why does R. Jehudah say, that the porch is also a door, because it is written [Ezekiel xv. 48], "the porch of the house," and that is equivalent to the door of a house. Why do not the sages hold the porch to be a door? Because, were it written, "the door of the porch," the porch might also be considered a door; but as it is written, "the porch of the house," it means the porch which opens towards the house, but not a door to the house.

How can it be that R. Jehudah bases his dictum on the porch of the house? The porch was twenty ells in width, and when the Mishna decrees that if the entry be wider than ten ells it must be made narrower, he does not dissent? (Why did he not say, that it was not necessary to lessen its width?) Said Abayi: In the following Boraitha he does dissent as we have learned: "If the width of the entry exceed ten ells it should be made narrower, but R. Jehudah says, it is not necessary." Why is this omitted in the Mishna? He disputes with the sages concerning the height, hence it is evident that he also disputes as to the width.

Again: How can it be that R. Jehudah bases his dictum upon the porch of the house? Have we not learned in a Boraitha, that if an entry exceed twenty ells in height, it must be lowered? R. Jehudah, however, says, that it may be made even forty or fifty ells in height, and Bar Kappara taught, that it may be even one hundred ells high. As for Bar Kappara, it is assumed to be an exaggeration; but as for R. Jehudah it cannot be considered merely an exaggeration, because he bases his dictum upon the porch of the house, and that was only forty ells in height. Why does he say "or fifty"? Whence his basis for such an assertion? Said R. Hisda: Rabh erred on account of the following Boraitha: "We have learned, an entry which is higher than twenty ells, thus exceeding the height of the door of the Temple, should be lowered." Now Rabh assumed, that if the sages base their teaching upon the door of the Temple, R. Jehudah bases his dictum upon the porch of the Temple, but this is not so! R. Jehudah does not consider the Temple at all, but uses as a basis the palaces of kings, the doors of which attain excessive heights.