Various Authors Various Authors - Talmud

Said R. Na'hman in the name of Samuel: A wood-shed of over two saahs' capacity, which was not fenced in for a dwelling, stood near a house which was subsequently built adjoining it. What is to be done in order to make it lawful for the occupants of the house to carry things to and from the wood-shed and the house on the Sabbath? First, a breach of more than ten ells should be made in the wall of the wood-shed (thereby rendering the walls useless); then the breach should be filled up so as to make it ten ells only. This will be regarded as a door, and will make it lawful to carry things between the house and the' wood-shed.

The schoolmen asked: "How is it, if the man tore down and rebuilt the walls of the wood-shed piecemeal, i.e. , ell by ell until more than ten ells were torn down and then by rebuilding just ten ells of the breach were left. (Must over ten ells be demolished at once in order to render the wall useless or does it suffice if eventually such a breach was made even if it was done ell by ell)"? The answer was: Is this not the same as we have learned in a Mishna (in Tract Kelim), that the vessels of householders which contain a hole larger than a pomegranate are not subject to defilement; and Hezkyah asked, what the law was if a hole the size of an olive was made in the vessel and stopped up and this was repeated until the hole became the size of a pomegranate. R. Johanan answered him and related that Rabbi taught this in another Mishna concerning a sandal, one ear of which had become torn and was mended when the other became tom and was also mended, the sandal after the second mending is not subject to defilement. Rabbi was asked why he had ordained thus, for after the second mending, the same condition existed in the sandal as after the first. He answered: Nay; when the other ear was broken off the sandal was virtually destroyed and after it had been mended it assumed a different appearance. This statement can also be applied to the wall, which with each successive breach of one ell assumed a different appearance. The answer was: Such explanations are superhuman (and can only be made by an angel). According to another version, the answer was: "This is a man (who has knowledge)." 1

Said R. Kahana: "In a bleaching-ground (behind a house) things must not be carried except for a distance of four ells." Said R. Na'hman: "If a door was erected in the bleaching-ground, things may be carried over its entire extent; because the door renders this lawful."

If a wood-shed of over two saahs' capacity which had been intended for a dwelling was filled with water it is considered as if planted with trees, and things may be carried over its entire extent. Said Ameimar: Provided the water was fit to drink; but if not fit for drinking purposes, things must not be carried within the wood-shed.

There was a bleaching-ground in the city of Pumnahara, one side of which opened into the city and the other side into a path leading to a vineyard, which in turn opened into the banks of a lake. Said Rabha: A side-beam should be erected on the side of the bleaching-ground facing the city, and if this is of use as an entry to the city, it will also be a valid entry for the bleaching-ground. This makes it lawful to carry things both in the entry and in the bleaching-ground; but as for carrying from the entry into the bleaching-ground or vice versa , there is a difference of opinion between R. Aha and Rabhina. One permits this because the bleaching-ground is uninhabited. The other prohibits this, lest the bleaching-ground become at some time inhabited and things will be carried to and fro nevertheless.

A wood-shed of over two saahs' capacity which was not fenced in for a dwelling and was made smaller by planting trees therein, is not considered diminished in size. If, however, a pillar was erected within it, ten spans high and four wide, it is considered diminished. If the pillar was less than three spans wide, all agree, that it is of no account; but if it be over three spans and less than four, Rabha said, that the wood-shed is thereby diminished because a thing which is over three spans wide does not come within the law of "lavud" (attachment), and is hence considered an independent subject; Rabha, however, maintains that it is not diminished, for a subject which is less than four spans is of no account.

If a partition was made in the wood-shed four spans distant from the wall, things may be carried over the entire wood-shed. If the partition was less than three spans from the wall, all agree that this would be unlawful. If over three and less than four, Rabba said it is lawful, and Rabha said it is not. R. Shimi, however, taught this ordinance in a more lenient form, namely: If the partition was over three and less than four spans from the wall, all agree, that it is lawful; but if it was less than three then there is a difference of opinion.

Rabba bar bar Hana propounded a question: "If the bottom part of a partition was swallowed up by the earth and the top part remained, can it be accounted a lawful partition or not?" What was the object of this question? If it refers to a partition which was erected on the estate of a deceased proselyte, then this question is identical with that of Jeremiah of Bira, which is decided in Tract Baba Bathra; and if it refers to the Sabbath-law, i.e. , if a partition was made on Sabbath, then the question has already been decided previously (page 47).

Concerning a wood-shed of three saahs' capacity which was provided with a roof of only one saah capacity Rabha said: The atmosphere of the unroofed portion of the wood-shed nullifies the roof which has been erected and things must not be carries within it. R. Zera, however, said: The atmosphere of the unroofed portion does not interfere with the roof which is considered as attached to the part of one saah's capacity and things may be carried within the roofed part with impunity. I admit, however, that if a wall of the wood-shed facing a courtyard was entirely demolished, the atmosphere of the adjoining courtyard renders the remaining walls void and makes the woodshed one of over two saahs' capacity.

There was a garden on the estate of the Exilarch containing a pavilion. On a Friday R. Huna bar Hinana was told to go out there and make the pavilion suitable so that things could be carried and meals taken within it on the morrow. He went and placed some sticks of less than three spans in height in the ground around the pavilion. Rabha then went out and tore down the sticks. R. Papa and R. Huna the son of R. Jehoshua even went and hid the sticks so that R. Huna bar Hinana could not obtain them again (because all three held, that the sticks would have been of no account whatever). So the Exilarch applied to them the verse [Jeremiah iv. 22]: "Wise are they to do evil, but how to do good they do not know."

" R. Ilai said: I have heard from R. Eliezer, that even though a garden or wood-shed be large enough to permit of the planting of a whole kur ," etc. This Mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Hananiah, who said, that even if they have a capacity of forty saahs, as a parade ground for soldiers in front of the king's palace, things may be carried within them, so it was taught in a Boraitha. Said R. Johanan: Both R. Eliezer and Hananiah adduced their opinions from the same passage, viz. [II Kings xx. 4]: "And it came to pass, before Isaiah was gone out into the middle court," etc., while subsequently city is mentioned and hence the inference that a parade ground be it even as large as a medium-sized town is still called a court provided it be in front of the king's palace. Their point of difference is, that one holds a medium-sized town to have a capacity of one kur while the other holds that it has a capacity of forty saahs.

" I also heard from him ," etc. Did we not learn in another Mishna, that neither the householder himself nor the other inmates of the court (yard) may carry anything to and from his house? Said R. Huna the son of R. Jehoshua in the name of R. Shesheth: This presents no difficulty. The Mishna is in accordance with R. Eliezer, who holds, that if one had resigned his right to the use of the court he also resigned his privilege of the use of his house, but according to the opinion of the rabbis it may be said that, if he had resigned his right to the court, he did not thereby resign his privilege of the use of his house. Is this not self-evident? (Why should we say, it may be said?) They cannot differ on any other point. Said Rahabha (Rabha): I and R. Huna bar Hinana have explained this as follows: The case was, where there were five inmates of one court, and one of them forgot to combine in the erub; according to R. Eliezer, at the time that he resigns his right to the use of the court in favor of all the other inmates he need not do so to each one individually also, and he at the same time resigns the privilege of using his house to the other inmates, while according to the Rabbis, he must do so to each one of the inmates individually and must also bear in mind to resign his privilege of using his house.