Babylonian Talmud

Rodkinson 1918 — source 1, scan section 14

ground, and it has been taught that such holes are regarded the same as the private ground itself. As to holes on public ground, Abayi said : They are like public ground. Rabha, however, says that they are not. Said Rabha to Abayi: According to your theory, holes on public ground are to be considered the same as the ground itself. In which respect, then, does this case differ from what R. Dimi said above (p. 8) in the name of R. Johanan ? Let, according to thy opinion, such a corner be considered as a hole in public ground. Nay, the use of the corner is not considered favorable by people, while no one objects to the use of a hole in the street. R. Hisda said: If a person erected a pole on private ground and threw something at it, if that thing rested on top of the pole, and be that pole a hundred ells high, the person is culpable, for private ground is absolutely unlimited in height. Shall we assume that R. Hisda holds in accordance with Rabbi of the following Boraitha: " If one threw a thing (in TRACT SABBATH. ii the street) and it rested upon the smallest cornice* (of a house), according to Rabbi he is culpable, and the schoolmen say that he is not." Said Abayi : In private ground all admit the decision of R. Hisda, The case, however, in which Rabbi and the sages differ was a tree that stands on private ground with its branches reaching out into public ground, and one threw a thing which rested on a branch. Rabbi holds that the branch is part and parcel of the root, but the sages opine that we need not assume such to be the case. Abayi said : If one threw a bee-hive which was ten spans high, but not six spans wide, into the street, he is culpable ; if, however, the bee-hive was six spans wide, he is free (because it is considered a piece of private ground in itself). Rabha, how- ever, said he is not, even if it be less than six spans wide. Why so ? Because it is impossible for twined reed not to exceed the given height. t In case he threw the bee-hive :{: with its mouth down, even if the hive is a trifle over seven spans high, he is culpable; but if it is seven and a half spans high, he is not. R. Ashi, however, said: He is, even if it is seven and a half spans high. Why so ? Because the enclosing rim of the bee-hive is made for the purpose of containing something within, and not to be attached to the ground ; hence it is not included in the Lavud class. § Ula said : A post nine spans high, which stands in the street, and people use it to shoulder (their burdens) on, if one threw a thing and it rested on the top of it, he is culpable. Why so ? Because a thing that is less than three spans high is stepped upon by many ; a thing between three and nine spans high is not used either to step or to shoulder a burden on ; but if it is nine spans high, it is surely used to shoulder burdens on. Abayi questioned R. Joseph: What is the law of a pit (of similar depth) ? Said he: The same (as of the post). Rabha, * The cornice which is spoken of above should be like the branch in this instance. f The space above ten spans does not enter within the jurisdiction of public ground. X Here a bee-hive is spoken of which is not six spans in circumference, i.e., less than four spans square. § There is a law of Mosaic origin determining that every object that is not farther from the ground than three spans must be considered " Lavud," i.e., attached to the ground. In the above case, when a bee-hive seven spans or a trifle over seven spans high is thrown to the ground, it does not become postively " Lavud " when within three spans from the ground, and is thus considered ten spans in all. The margin is too small. It must be seven and a half spans high, and when reaching the ground within three spans the hive becomes " Lavud," and being positively over ten spans high is treated as a piece of private property. 12 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. however, said : A pit of similar depth is not governed by the same law. Why so ? Because the use (which is made of a thing) through compulsion is not called (a customary) use. R. Adda bar Mathna objected to Rabha from the following Boraitha: If one intended to keep the Sabbath on public ground and deposited his Erubh in a pit less than ten spans (below the ground), his act is valid. " If he deposited it more than ten spans below the ground, his Erubh is of no value." Let us see how was the case. If the pit was more than ten spans deep, and by the saying " he deposited it less than ten spans below the ground" is meant that he raised the Erubh to a higher place, and by the saying" more than ten spans" is meant on the bottom of the pit, then, at all events, the Erubh could not be of any value; as he is in public ground, and his Erubh is in private, therefore we must say that the case was of a pit less than ten spans deep, and nevertheless the Erubh is valid ; hence we see that the use of a place through compulsion can at times be considered as customary use. The answer was that the Boraitha is according to Rabbi, who says that against things which are prohibited only rabbini- cally because of rest (Shebuoth) no precautionary measures are taken when they are to be done at twilight, and the prescribed time for depositing an Erubh is twilight; therefore, although* the use of the pit which was less than ten spans deep was com- pulsory, the Erubh was nevertheless valid, because respecting twilight the rabbis are not particular. R. Jehudah said: If one moves a bundle of reeds by raising one end and throwing it over, then raising the other end and throwing it over, he is not culpable, unless he lifts the entire bundle off the ground. The master said: " A man standing on the door-step," etc. What is that step ? If it is the step of the street, how may he "take from the master of the house"; does he not transfer from private ground into public ground ? If it is the step of the house, how may he " take from the mendicant (standing in the street) " ? Does he not transfer from public into private ground ? And if it is unclaimed ground, how may he " take and give intentionally," since a direct prohibition to that efTect exists ? Nay, the door-step is a place concerning which the law has no provision ; as, for instance, it is not four spans square. It is said elsewhere by R. Dimi in the name of R. Johanan that such a thing is not under the jurisdiction. TRACT SABBATH. 13 The master said: " All three are not culpable." Would this not be an objection to Rabha, who said if one transfer an object (in public ground) from one to the other limit of four spans, even if he moves it over his head {i.e., above ten spans from the ground), he is culpable ? In the above-mentioned