Babylonian Talmud

Rodkinson 1918 — source 3, scan section 23

of their own accord. (This was taught concerning the enclosures around the well.) Now, then, if we should say, that this Boraitha applies to a man who holds both the vessel and the cattle, why should he not water the cattle out of the vessel? We must there- fore assume, that he did not hold the cattle, and consequently it is obvious that one must hold both the vessel and the cattle. Have we not learned, that Abayi explains the mentioned Boraitha as follows : The case was, where a crib, ten spans high and four spans wide (forming in itself a private ground), and opening into the enclosures surrounding the well, stood in pub- lic ground and the animal stood in private ground ? The Borai- tha ordains, that the man should not fill a vessel with water and carry it to the animal, but pour it into the crib, i.e., he should not lift the vessel with water over the crib and carry it through public ground to the animal, lest he notice that the crib is broken and he will carry the crib into the place where the animal stands to mend it, thus carrying a thing from public into private ground ? Even if he did so, can the man be held culpable ? Did not R. Saphra say, in the name of R. Ami, quoting R, Johanan : " If one moved a certain thing from one corner into another in private ground and then carried it into public ground, he is not culpable, because his original intention was not to carry it into public ground?" Abayi means to state, that the man might mend the crib where it was standing and then carry it into pri- vate ground. TRACT ERUBIN. 49 Come and hear (another objection): " A camel, whose head and greater part of the body was within the enclosures around a well, may be crammed." Now, in such a case, the man certainly holds the animal and the vessel, and still it is necessary that the head and larger part of the body of the animal be within the enclosures ? Said R, A'ha bar R. Huna in the name of R. Shesheth: " With a camel it is different; the neck of a camel being very long, if the camel turned its head around it would be in public ground." We have learned also in a Boraitha, that R. Eliezer also prohibits this to be done with a camel, because its neck is very long. R. Itz'hak bar Ada said: " The enclosures around wells are not permitted to be used by any but the pilgrims while going to Jerusalem for the festivals." Did we not learn in a Boraitha that the enclosures are allowed only for cattle ? By cattle is meant the cattle of the pilgrims, but what should a man who wishes to drink do ? He should hold on to the walls of the well and drink there. [This is not so ! Did not R. Itz'hak in the name of R. Jehudah quoting Samuel say, that the enclosures are permitted to be made only around wells containing spring-water but not rain-water ? If the wells were only allowed for cattle, why should this distinction be made ? The water must be fit for human use also (because the enclosures are erected for the sake of the water, the latter should be good water).] If the walls of the well were very wide and a man could not climb over them, he may draw water from the well and drink it. R. Jeremiah bar Abba said in the name of Rabh : The laws of a road that had huts built on it at seventy ells apart and of enclosures around wells do not hold good in Babylon or any- where outside of Palestine. The first law does not apply to Babylon on account of the frequent floods and to other lands on account of thieves who would steal the huts, and the second law does not apply to Babylon because of the abundance of water and to other lands because there are no colleges of learning. Said R. Hisda to Mari the son of R. Huna the son of Jere- miah bar Abba: " I have heard, that ye, men of Bamash, go to the synagogue of Daniel on the Sabbath, a distance of three miles. Upon what grounds do ye do this ? Do yc depend upon the law of huts ? Was it not said by thy grandrather in the name of Rabh, that this law does not apply to Babylon ? " R. Hisda was shown by Mari demolished buildings scattered over VOL. III. — 4 50 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. the entire road, at about seventy ells apart, which at one time formed part of the city itself. Said R. Hisda: Mari bar Mar related: It is written [Jeremiah xxiv, i]: " The Lord caused me to see, and, behold, there were two baskets of figs placed before the temple of the Lord," etc., and [ibid. 2] : " The one basket had very good figs, like the figs that are first ripe ; and the other basket had very bad figs, which could not be eaten, from being so bad." The good figs repre- sent the strictly righteous and the bad figs the grossly wicked, but if you mean to say, that for the grossly wicked there is no more hope, therefore it is written [Solomon's Song vii. 14] : " The mandrakes* give forth their smell." Rabha preached: "By the passage 'The mandrakes give forth their smell ' is meant the young men of Israel who have not yet tasted of the fruit of sin, and by * at our doors are all man- ners of precious fruits ' is meant the virgins of Israel who are modest before their marriage, and by the passage ' new and also old, O my friend ! these have I laid up for thee ' is meant what the congregation of Israel said to the Holy One, blessed be He, namely: ' Creator of the Universe! Even more than thou hast ordained for us, have we ordained for ourselves and have faith- fully observed.' " Said R, Hisda to one of the scholars who read legendary matter before him: " Hast thou not heard what is meant by ' new and also old ' (in the passage quoted) ?" He answered: " ' The old ' refers to biblical ordinances and the ' new ' to rab- binical." Rabha preached: " It is written [Ecclesiastes xii. 12]: ' But more than all these, my son, take warning for thyself: the making of many books would have no end; and much preaching is a weariness of the flesh.' This means: ' My son, be careful in the observance of the rabbinical commandments (even more than in the biblical); for while the biblical commandments are for the most part positive and negative {i.e., not always involv- ing the death-penalty if violated), the rabbinical commandments, if infracted, would involve capital punishment. Lest one might say, that if such be the case, why were not the rabbinical com- mandments written down, the answer is provided, ' The making of many books would have no end.' The end of the passage * The Hebrew term used for baskets and for mandrakes in both passages is " Dudaim," hence the inference by analogy. TRACT ERUBIN. 51 ' Much preaching is a weariness of the flesh,' signifies, that one who devotes much thought and reflection to the rabbinical com- mandments, acquires a taste as if he had eaten an excess of meat." The Rabbis taught: It happened that when R. Aqiba was in