Babylonian Talmud

Rodkinson 1918 — source 3, scan section 40

valley, and Gentiles made an enclosure around the valley on the Sabbath, he may go two thousand ells, but he may throw things over the entire extent of the valley." R. Huna said: " He may- go two thousand ells, but may carry only for a distance of four ells." The reason R. Huna prohibits throwing is in precaution, lest the man throw a thing outside of his two thousand ells and go after it. Hyya bar Rabh, however, said : He may go two thousand ells and may carry things inside of that limit. Said R. Na'hman to R. Huna: " Do not refute the dictum of Samuel; for we have learned in a Boraitha in support of Samuel." R, Huna said: " If one measured the legal distance on a Sabbath and his measurement came to an end in one half of a court, he may avail himself of that half of the court only." Is this not self-evident ? If he ended his measurement in one half of a court, why should he not avail himself of that half ? We might assume, that if the one half is permitted he might be tempted to use the other half also, so we are told that this pre- caution is not necessary. R. Na'hman said: " Huna agrees with me, that if in measur- ing the Sabbath-distance, the measurement end in the edge of a house, one may throw things into the house although he must not go into it himself, for the edge of the house is a fixed sign for him and will remind him, that he must not enter the house." Said R. Huna the son of R. Nathan: " The necessity for a precautionary measure to prevent the man from entering the house forms the subject of a discussion between Tanaim as follows: If foes or an evil spirit have carried the man into another town, or into a pen or a fold for cattle, he may, accord- ing to Rabbon Gamaliel and R. Elazar ben Azariah, go about throughout the entire extent (of such a place); R. Joshua and R. Aqiba, however, maintain, that he must not move further than four ells." Now, we must assume that those who permit the traversing of the entire extent of such places do so because 96 ^ THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. they do not fear that the man will traverse the whole valley where those places are situated, and those who only allow four ells, do so, because they regard this precautionary measure neces- sary. The same argument applies also to throwing, viz. : Those who have no fear that the man will traverse the entire valley, permit throwing throughout the pen or fold where the man is ensconced and those who allow him only four ells hold the same precautionary measure necessary where throwing and going after it is concerned. Rabh said : " The Halakha prevails according to R. Gamaliel, where a pen, fold or ship is concerned," but Samuel said: " Only as far as a ship is concerned, but not as regards a pen or a fold." Thus we see that, as to a ship, all agree the Halakha prevails according to R. Gamaliel. What is the reason there- for ? Said Rabba: "Because already before the Sabbath set in, the man is within the confines of the ship and although the ship was involuntarily carried out beyond the legal limits, the man had prepared his Sabbath-rest there." R. Zera said, how- ever: " The reason is: that the man on board of the ship did not have four ells to move in, for the ship moves more than four ells every time it lurches foward, consequently he does not come under the law of four ells and may go throughout the entire extent of the ship." Rabba rejoined : " Thou referrest to a man who entered the ship while in motion. Concerning this, there is no difference between any of the Tanaim ; even R. Aqiba per- mits the traversing of the entire ship, but they differ concerning a man who entered the ship while it was anchored." Said R. Na'hman bar Itz'hak : From the Mishna itself we may infer, that there was no difference concerning a ship while in motion, because it states, that R. Joshua and R. Aqiba did not move beyond four ells, as they wished to take upon themselves the rigid observance. Were it not permitted at all, why should it say, that they wished to take upon themselves the rigid obser- vance, they would have to obey the law ? Said R. A'ha the son of Rabha to R. Ashi : " The Halakha prevails according to R. Gamaliel where a ship is concerned." Then, there must be some who maintain that the Halakha does not prevail according to R. Gamaliel. Yea, there are, as we have learned in the following Boraitha: Hananiah the son of R. Jehoshua's brother said: " The whole day that R. Gamaliel and R. Aqiba were on board the ship they disputed concerning this Halakha, and yesterday my uncle affirmed the Halakha to the TRACT ERUBIN. 97 effect, that as. regards a ship at anchor it prevails according to R. Gamaliel and as for a pen or a fold it prevails according to R. Aqiba. " R. Hananiah propounded a question : Is there such a thing as a legal limit above ten spans from the ground or not ? Con- cerning a pillar ten spans high and four spans wide one side of which was outside of the legal limit there is no question ; for it is equal to the ground itself, but concerning a pillar, that was ten spans high and less than four spans wide or a man who went on board of a ship, does the law of legal limits apply or not ? R.- Hosea answered: " Come and hear! It once happened that four sages came together from Parendisim, etc. (see Mishna). If we say, that the law of legal limits applies to objects higher than ten spans, then it can be understood why R. Joshua and R. Aqiba took upon themselves the rigid observance (for con- cerning a ship in motion they do not disagree with the other sages), viz. : on account of the law of legal limits, but if this law does not apply to a ship, what rigid observance could they have taken upon themselves ? " Rejoined R. Hananiah : " It may be that their ship was passing through shallow water, as related elsewhere by Rabha, and was not over ten spans from the ground." Come and hear! The seven Halakhas related on a Sabbath morn in the presence of R. Hisda at Sura were related on the same evening in the presence of Rabha at Pumbaditha. Who could have decreed them ? No one, but Elijah? Hence we see, that there is no such thing as legal limits above ten spans from the ground ? Nay. It may be that those Halakhas were trans- mitted from one school to the other by Joseph the evil One, who did not observe the Sabbath. Come and hear! If one say: I wish to be a Nazarite at the coming of the Messiah, he may drink wine on a Sabbath or on a festival but must not do so during the week-days. (For Messiah is liable to come at any time.) The Boraitha would be correct if we assume, that there is a legal limit above ten spans from the ground, because Messiah will then not come on the Sabbath or on a festival, but if there is no legal limit above ten spans, the